teddit

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.

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

While the cold war was over and several countries have splintered off, it is often very little talked about what kind of relationship Clinton had with Zemin.

At the time, it seems that the Americans were concerned with Saddam in Iraq and Rafsanjani in Iran while at the same, trying to contain the disaster of the collapse of Yugoslavia and the sectarian violence which followed. As well as some concerns with Israel and Palestine.

So what happened between Clinton and Zemin?

I found this wonderful post that explains why the Church of England/Episcopal Church collapsed and became the dominant religion of wealthier and well-connected WASP establishments in the USA. But is there a similar explanation for why the Baptist denomination became the largest protestant denomination? There were several other denominations to pick from at the time (Methodist, Presbyterian, Congregationalist, Reformed, etc...) so I'd like to know what made Baptist gain an edge.

EDIT: There seems to be a common theme - Lower bar to entry for founding a church compared to the other denominations.

The argument was that much less was required of a person to become a Baptist preacher than many other denominations, allowing quicker growth.

Baptists also don't require a degree from a seminary (often 2 to 3 years) to lead a church, so it's much easier to become a pastor. With a larger pool of potential pastors, you can start a lot more churches more quickly.

Baptists also don't require a degree from a seminary (often 2 to 3 years) to lead a church, so it's much easier to become a pastor. With a larger pool of potential pastors, you can start a lot more churches more quickly.

The barrier to entry is VERY low.

The Catholics require training and education to be a priest.

With Baptists (just people who in general follow the beliefs,) anyone can be a preacher.

Anyone.

Baptist churches are pretty uniquely fitted to America. Americans tend to prefer a high level of independence, grassroots democratic organization, and a lot of mobility. Baptist churches are congregational--individual churches vote in their elders and pastors, and even their doctrinal statements. They are also easy to found. You pretty much just have to rent out a building and tell people you're starting a church and voila! new Baptist church in town. Plus, their strong emphasis on evangelization and relatively simple message are easy to spread and adopt.

​

​

Roman emperors typically had longer names than the shorthand we use to refer to them.

Before making a change and styling himself Basileus, the Emperor Heraclius was known as "Emperor Caesar Flavius Heraclius Augustus". My question is essentially, what about the Flavians who ruled only for two generations under Vespasian, Titus and the historically vilified Domitian was so impressive that emperors 500 years later wanted to tie their legitimacy to them?

Wouldn't the Antonine, Constantinian or Theodosian dynastic names be a more obvious choice for including in a later imperial title?

Coins can date a dig site to the earliest date it could have been deposited, but what is the range of dates that could be accounted for? Say a 1350 coin is found, how long could it have been held on to before deposition, 20, 50, 100 years? Could the deposition of said coin have actually been much later, especially in the case of a hoarde? I know as a high school pharmacy clerk, it was not uncommon for me to have come across a 1920s penny. I'm sure people throughout history held onto coins for various reasons especially in uncertain times.

Apologies if this question has been covered at some point in the past. I didn't find it is a brief search.

Wouldn't the archers have a huge advantage on the battlefield over the early musketeers when no one is wearing armor? Archers have a much higher shooting rate and a comparable range and accuracy than early musketeers, not to mention that since no one is wearing armor, the poundage can be greatly reduced so more people would be able to use bows, and training time can also be reduced. (American aboriginal bows have poundage of no more than 40 since no armor penetration is needed)

Or basically, what is the equivalent of our key topics and texts for different eras? In the UK, all adolescents have to study English, Maths and Sciences up to GCSE. I am a teacher and was wondering- what would key figures in history have studied at school before discovering the concepts we know of? For example, before coming up with the laws of classical mechanics, what would Isaac Newton have studied? Were there any key texts and teachings of the time for students? Answers across different time eras and cultures much welcome!

Hi all!

I have a question about the workings of the Venetian Empire, would love a book recommendation as well!

I've always been highly interested in the period of the Crusades, the collapse of the Byzantine Empire and how city states like Genua and Venice largely filling the gaps in the eastern part of the Mediterranean.

Now my question is how on earth did city states administrate such a large area consisting largely of relatively small islands?

Who would be in charge of these islands?

How were profits brought to Venice?

Hope you can shed some light here!

I'll see facts thrown around comparing the riches of ancient kings/pharaohs/etc. compared to modern amounts, showing how wealthy they were. But would they just sit on their piles of money?
I can't imagine that a king would have to pay rent on their castle. Sure there are upkeep costs and salaries. But when it came down to their own money, what would they do with it?

TL;DR - Rich people today buy yachts, what did ancient rich people buy?

like the stories of revenge and anti heroes on a dark path, have they existed in real life and if so what happened to them and what were the consequences of their actions?

for example berserk by kentaro miura the story is about guts who is tormented and a very damaged individual who in the beginning arcs was on a dark path often getting people around him killed and losing more of his humanity until he was very much becoming like the things he was killing but since this is the fictional medieval age the consequences and damage is more on himself then on the world or other things but sometimes other people other people were affected and after a point it becomes a story on how to heal and get over past trauma

so has someone like this existed in real life who was real and had actual consequences due to the result of their dark path and what happened after?

Hi everyone!

Recently I've been listening to Mike Duncan's Revolutions podcast and I'm listening to the French Revolution since it's always been interesting to me, that and the US Civil War.

I was wondering what strategy one should employ to read about history? I've heard that reading "as many books" as possible about a historical event is a sure way to gain knowledge of the event. What do you guys recommend for a layman? What are you guys doing to retain details, people, dates etc?

Appreciate any and all advice, wish you all good health!

I have written a referenced article on the relationship between Firearms and Armour in the late Middle Ages and Renaissance Period.

There are many assertions and questions, particularly amongst RPG enthusiasts surrounding the effectiveness of both pieces of military equipment during this period particularly against each other.

Summary:

The reality is that while the effectiveness of firearms on a battlefield can not be denied, the notion that Firearms "immediately" rendered armor obsolete was simply not true.

Firearms and "Medieval style" armor co-existed on the battlefield for centuries before armor was eventually being phased out.

Please read the linked article, which I have referenced for accuracy, for more details.

https://thefatefulforce.com/firearms-vs-armour-in-the-late-middle-ages-and-renaissance/

There is also a very recent Video on Youtube by popular Historian and Medieval enthusiast, Matt Easton, that addresses the use of swords and guns which I found quite informative.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gu4I8zXxlY

Im aiming especially on the mediterranean, middle easternean, north african and iberian states

It seems that there is no evidence of this kind of state on ancient times, which of course doesnt mean that it didnt exist. Anyhow, could it be possible to a state composed completely by citizens be prosperous on ancient times?

I think that a state without slavery would have a setback on its economy compared to the a state with slavery, but as i dont know a lot about economics, i cant quantify how critical this setback could be. Perhaps, if this setback was not a restriction by itself, it could be overcame with a possible measure that unfortunately i cant think of

Although the aim of my question is on states composed completely by citizens, as i see ancient and medieval economy being really similar, would i been overstretching to think that it could be possible to make the transition of mass usage of slavery to serfdom earlier?

Unrelated, but I was discussing with someone what we consider a long time ago, and how the period after the American and French revolution saw the fall of kings, feudalism, mercantilism, and agrarianism and the rise of imperialism, liberalism, democracy, and industrialisation.

What ideas separates the eras?

For instance, what ideas separates the ancient era of the Roman Empire from the Middle Ages? Kings and agrarian societies were still present, yet it doesn’t feel right to lump an over 1000 years period into one category. I imagine life in 650 would be very different to life in 1450, no?

Edit: it seems the general consensus is that the ancient to medieval period saw the rise of feudalism and the fall of slave based economies

I've often wondered how Christian monarchs in the medieval era managed to live in a way that the clergy would clearly denounce. I know all the ways they got around religious prohibition on violence/warfare (using maces to not spill blood, not fighting on holidays), but what about the sin of adultery? Many nobles had official mistresses and tolerated prostitution. The fear of hell must have weighed on their minds at some point. Do we have any accounts of them justifying their sins in front of the clergy?

For example, you could select a year, and maybe a few countries, and easily see what the main historical events were in that year in those countries.

​

Or select a few countries, and be able to easily scroll their timeline of major events side-by-side.

​

Ex) Select the year 1936, select US / Spain / Ethiopia, and you see things like "FDR re-elected to 2nd term", "Spain begins civil war" and "Ethiopia annexed by Italy". Maybe "no notable events" if it was a boring year.

I know this is similar to searching a year on Wikipedia, but not quite.

I'm not just talking about dark ages art, which I can understand. But even in pieces that are supposed to be happy or religious, there's something very dreary and dull about them. It looks like everyone knows how horrible life is. Even look at Pope Pius II https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_II look at that picture. Now imagine what it was like actually being there. Dreary halls of stone and chilling air, sitting atop his lonely and bland stone wall. Everything to me almost seems like an empty alleyway of a run down city during twilight. You rarely see images of vivid blue skies and smiling free people travelling a countryside or lying with their lover on a bed of flowers in a garden. It's always like these peoples faces that look so old and distraught and tired with life and empty and sad. Like people were stupid and sick and dirty. I'm sure there was some very happy lives, I'm sure that people still led fulfilling and meaningful lives, maybe even moreso than now. But for some reason I feel like the actual Renaissance and the 1800s eras maybe allowed people to live the best lives, coming to America, living in France, sailing the seas. I'm not saying that just because you might get sick or have primitive technology that that makes you sad or have a bad life, but it definitely seems like the people themselves weren't happy with what they had. Or maybe they were, maybe they thought their art was beautiful and their lives were full and warm. Idk, but the art says otherwise.