Submitted by AutoModerator t3_11hylr5 in history

Welcome to our History Questions 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. r/history also has an active discord server where you can discuss history with other enthusiasts and experts



You must log in or register to comment.

Jazzlike-Equipment45 t1_jaw5r5h wrote

How were confusian households in China set up in the past? Mainly asking because I read that the wife and husband never shared a bed and it interested me as to why that was the case?


Apprehensive-Bad-651 t1_javs22w wrote

Was Hitler sympathetic towards Indians and Muslims? Or was he racist towards them?


jezreelite t1_jaw6kt6 wrote

Nazi racial ideology posited that all non-Europeans were inferior to Aryans, but since they couldn't blend in as easily with "real" Aryans, sub-Saharan Africans, Arabs, and East Asians were much less dangerous to the Aryan gene pool and didn't need to be exterminated, as Jews, Roma, and most Slavs were.

The attitude toward Indo-Iranians is rather singular, though, because they were regarded as Aryans, but not as pure and superior as the Nordic people of Germany, England, and Scandinavia. Nazi racial ideology was quite popular among elites in Iran, many of whom already had negative views of Arabs, Jews, and Turks, but I'm not sure about how it was received in India.


[deleted] t1_javyuyt wrote



AngryBlitzcrankMain t1_jaw1wkk wrote

Wrong, completely. Hitler was extremely sympathetic towards them as he grew up reading about Native Americans in widely popular books by Karl May. He actually used to send the copies of those books to his generals as "inspiration". He viewed Native Americans´ struggle to reclaim their ancestral homeland similar to Germans attempt to "regain their lebensraum".


awolfgangc t1_jaw4enx wrote

Well OP wasn't even referring to Native Americans, but I would disagree with you. You got the lebensraum backwards for one thing. He was talking about white European settlers pushing Native Americans aside for THEIR "lebensraum".

I hate to give this nasty hate a forum, but according to this book review of Carroll Kakel’s “The American West and the Nazi East” about the Hitler's views of the American West (

"Admiring how the United States had “gunned down the millions of Redskins to a few hundred thousand, and now keep the modest remnant under observation in a cage,” Hitler spoke of his intention to similarly “Germanize” the east “by the immigration of Germans, and to look upon the natives as Redskins.” Echoing American justifications for westward settlement, he stated, “It is inconceivable that a higher people should painfully exist on a soil too narrow for it, whilst amorphous masses, which contribute nothing to civilization, occupy infinite tracts of a soil that is one of the richest in the world.” His answer? “Here in the east a similar process will repeat itself for the second time as in the conquest of America.” For Hitler, “Our Mississippi must be the Volga.”... As for resistance by those being conquered, killed and cleared? Hitler compared it to “the struggle in North America against the Red Indians.” After all, he said, “who remembers the Red Indians?”"

That doesn't sound very sympathetic to me.


-Neurotica- t1_jay01we wrote

Hello everyone!

I'm currently looking for some book suggestions regarding the Peloponnesian War and Greeco-Persian Wars.

Apart from covering the main events and general history of these conflicts, I would really like to read about the battles that took place, maybe with some imagery regarding the battelfieds and the different tactics that were used, as well as an overview of the military structure and culture of each of the involved parties.

If you have any recommendation for books (or even documentaries!) that would cover these topics please let me know.

Thank you!


MeatballDom t1_jayd2sf wrote

For starters, you need to read Thucydides and Herodotus, definitely all of Thucydides (followed by the start of Xenophon's Hellenica which picks up literally continuing where Thucydides stopped). Herodotus is worth reading the whole thing, but at minimum 1.70 onward from book 1, skip book 2, read book 3, and read Book 5 onward. Any good source is going to discuss these events with the assumption that you've already read Thucydides and Herodotus.

On the Peloponnesian War, Donald Kagan's works are a bit dated, but will be easy enough to get through. For the Persian Wars, give Philip Souza's work a try, The Greek and Persian Wars, 499-386 B.C

For an overview, Hans van Wees' Greek Warfare is a book I will forever recommend. It's something I still will thumb through when working on my own stuff, but will also have students read it because it's written in a style that's really easy to follow even if you don't have a lot of experience or knowledge on the topic.

That will hold you over for awhile, after that try and figure out which bits you want to focus in on and we can recommend some more specific things.


-Neurotica- t1_jb1cqs5 wrote

Thank you for such a thoughtful reply, I will defintely be taking note of your suggestions!


PorkfatWilly t1_javqvig wrote

Did the United States enter World War One to protect American bank loans to Europe?


Jazzlike-Equipment45 t1_jaw5hcz wrote

Part of the reason why was that. Majority consensus that I have read was freedom of shipping. The Zimmerman telegram was just the cassus belli but main concerns and motivations for entering the war was the anger and frustrations at cargo ships being sunk.


elmonoenano t1_jaxx5x3 wrote

There's never one single cause to something like this. The other poster mentioned shipping, and German attacks on American shipping was a big part of it. The Zimmerman telegram was the final straw. But there were concerns about loans to England and France and there was natural affinity to for England that Americans tend towards in foreign policy. There were other ideas that France and England were more similar to democracies that Germany and Austro-Hungaria.

So, it was a confluence of all those factors, some being more important like shipping. Some being harder to quantify, like natural sympathy for the English.


PorkfatWilly t1_jb4puvm wrote

And where did that sympathy or affinity for helping England wage her wars come from? Seems like it was virtually nonexistent at the start of World War One.


The_Fallen-_- t1_jaw46bj wrote

Hey guys , I was reading an article in the internet that said Isaac Newton was a pugilist(bare-knuckle boxer) in his youth, so I wanted to make sure if it is true or if there is any historical paper or books pointing about it?


Stalins_Moustachio t1_jb4lmaq wrote

Hey there! It's indeed true. Newton was a bare-knuckle boxer, and was described by a student of his as being a fan of 'eye-gouging, choking, and headbutting.' I haven't seen a book dedicated to this topic, however, I came across it in several articles about the man.


Outrageous-Door8924 t1_jaxm682 wrote

How were restaurants made "more accessible to the middle class [and not just the wealthy]" after the Great Depression and WW2?

This comment by a deleted account over on Ask Historians mentions that era as the time when France lost ground as the capitol of restaurants and fine dining, while, simultaneously, the restaurant industry in America became more accessible to the middle class.


OsoCheco t1_jb9qlgw wrote

It's weird take. Why wouldn't restaurants be accessible? There always were food-serving places, for all income levels. It doesn't really matter if you call them restaurants, pubs, cafeterias, guest house etc.

The change after WW2 wasn't really related to restaurants, but to the general increase of prosperity, when even middle class people suddenly had surplus income.


aedhforthecloths t1_jbnniha wrote

Can someone recommend the best book on comparative greek and roman histories, perhaps with an emphasis on their falls?


Thibaudborny t1_jbsqra7 wrote

Check out Robin Lane Fox for Graeco-Roman history, he is a reknown historian on this era. Adrian Goldsworthy wrote some good works too (Fall of Rome) and particularly on the fall of Rome side, check out Peter Heather & Chris Wickham. I loved the Hellenistic World by Tarn & Griffith (ed.), but it is by now in some fields somewhat outdated, a more modern work on the Hellenistic world is Age of Conquests by Angelos Chianotis.


Apprehensive-Bad-651 t1_javs4cb wrote

How common was racism within the different ethnicities of White Americans back in the day?


bangdazap t1_javwfrk wrote

It's more of a case of who was defined as "white". Benjamin Franklin once warned Americans to be vary of "swarthy" people, like the French and Swedes. Irish people weren't considered white initially and it was common for places looking for workers to display the sign "Irish need not apply". In turn, later Italian immigrants had to build their own churches because they, albeit Catholic, weren't allowed to use Irish churches.

Jews were also not considered white, and establishments that didn't allow Jews were labeled "restricted". More recently, Hispanics are more and more considered to be white in America, which they weren't previously.


Iggy_spots t1_jawop52 wrote

My Jewish immigrant ancestors had their race listed as Hebrew on ship manifests.


Nonskew2 t1_jaxkwyj wrote

Did he say Swedes were swarthy? Sami maybe, but not Swedes..


bangdazap t1_jazqn53 wrote

>Which leads me to add one remark, that the number of purely white people in the world is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny; Asia chiefly tawny; America (exclusive of the new comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians, and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who, with the English, make the principal body of white people on the face of the earth.

​Benjamin Franklin, “Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind, People of Countries, Etc.” (1751)

Prejudice blinds you to the facts of reality I guess.


CraftyRole4567 t1_jaxfvq0 wrote

Historian here, I would agree that it’s not going to be as simple as looking at ethnicity. You also need to look at region and particularly at economic competition. For example, there were Irish immigrants and free Blacks in antebellum New York City who shared neighborhoods, saloons, and intermixed culture (where tap dancing comes from), but you can also find wealthy Blacks hiring the Irish as servants in Boston and looking down on them, and you can also find virulent, ugly racism in Irish-American communities made visible in the Boston Busing Crisis, for instance.


Forsaken_Champion722 t1_jawbq6x wrote

I like your question and bangdazap's reply, but I find that there is some confusion about the use of the term "racism". As a child in the 70s, I remember the famous PSA of a boy asking his grandpa what prejudice is. It seemed to me that racism was just one form of prejudice, and did not include prejudice based on religious beliefs or ethnic grudges among different people of the same race.

As far as prejudice among different white ethnic and religious groups, the answer is that it was very common. However, it is difficult to say precisely when prejudice based on religion and ethnicity becomes actual racism, based on biological/genetic differences.


Cap_Vast t1_jaxfaa9 wrote

Hello everyone, first time in this sub! I just want to ask about the Nanjing Massacre, did that actually happen or was it communist fabricated propaganda? My history class just went through war world 2 and the events that happened but I want to learn more about what actually happaned in the eastern front of the war. my second question is that why did Japan invade china and korean?


elmonoenano t1_jaxvrfe wrote

In re: to the Nanjing massacre, it wasn't a communist government at the time. And there is a lot of contemporary reporting of the issue. The stories of atrocities coming out of China were the motivation for the US to impose sanctions on Japan. So, at the time it was fairly well known what was going on.

Also, the war crimes tribunals set up after the war went through a lot of effort to document what happened. This was in the hands of the allied powers, but was mostly done by the US and the UK b/c of Russia's limited participation in the PTO until the very end of the war.

In regards to Korea, they have a lot of mineral resources that Japan needed.


Cap_Vast t1_jazifjp wrote

I feel bad for the Korean they had their home invaded and now split in 2


Doctor_Impossible_ t1_jay7m3z wrote

>did that actually happen or was it communist fabricated propaganda?

It actually happened, and even Nazis say it did. It's not a communist fabrication, nor were most of the people killed communists; the CCP didn't take over China until 1949.

>my second question is that why did Japan invade china and korean?

Japan sought the establishment of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, a thinly-veiled attempt at creating a larger Japanese empire, subjugating other countries for their resources, and ousting other empires from territory they wanted. Japan sought both superiority over other nations and resources to assist its economy, not least oil, to avoid the USA being able to pressure the country via further embargoes.


Cap_Vast t1_jaziefg wrote

Thanks for the information and had some people told me that it was all faked and was to blame Japan after they lost the war


Doctor_Impossible_ t1_jb0vn15 wrote

Yes, some people, mainly fascists and Japanese nationalists, do tell lies about it. In the same vein as Holocaust denial, it's a dishonest methodology of ignoring or twisting any evidence to fit what they believe.


No-Strength-6805 t1_jaxnkou wrote

Read Iris Changs book "The Rape of Nanking " over 200,000 men where slaughtered over 20,000 rapes by Japanese soldiers.And Japanese invaded because they wanted China and Korea,conquest very simple.


TheGreatOneSea t1_jayjoxj wrote

Adding on to the other answers, Japanese soldiers were expecting an easy victory in China, and when Japan started taking far more casualties than expected almost immediately, the Japanese reacted brutally: partly in the hopes of causing terrified acquiesce, and partly because the Japanese soldiers were just that furious.

It might seem odd, but Japanese training actually emphasized brutality as a means to make up logistical shortfalls, with beatings and bizarre punishments common in training as a result. Naturally, civilians under them were treated even worse, and this wasn't helped by Japanese propaganda lying about how "grateful" the locals were to Japan, which made the subsequent local resistance also feel unjust at best, leading to worse reprisals.


Cap_Vast t1_jazice3 wrote

That’s crazy! To think this stuff happen less than 100 years ago


Eminence_grizzly t1_jazw092 wrote

Why are you so surprised? Stuff like that kept happening after that, too - in Asia, Africa, and Europe.


sonofajak t1_jayg8lg wrote

Was there ever a Liberian idea of "Manifest Destiny"? The country was after all made by americans and inspired by americans so it wouldn't be surprising if they had their own little manifest destiny they never manifested


phillipgoodrich t1_jaz3ktn wrote

The concept of "repatriation" of people of African ancestry who had unwillingly been brought to the Americas, was initially developed in Great Britain by well-meaning but misguided white abolitionists like Granville Sharp and David Barclay (the latter of Barclays Bank) in the 18th century. This led to spectacular failures in West Africa due to undercapitalization and poor planning.

In the following generation in the U.S., once again well-meaning but poorly educated white Americans who were sympathetic to the cause of abolition of all human chattel slavery decided that Black people of African origin, because they were not of the same capacity and abilities as whites, could not be assimilated into white society, and therefore would need their own lands and governments back on the African continent. Among those of this mindset were Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln. But there was never any intention of whites, the proponents of "manifest destiny," to return with Blacks to Liberia in any capacity, so the concept of manifest destiny in Africa would have been stillborn.

In the U.S. it was primarily through the writings and speeches of Frederick Douglass that the concept of repatriation of Blacks to Africa was finally pointed out as hopelessly racist and a bankrupt concept. Douglass correctly pointed out that "my people built this country, and we have no desire to leave the nation of our birth to go elsewhere." Douglass, born in Maryland in slavery, had successfully escaped and ultimately was able to purchase his own freedom, and that of his family. He would advise Lincoln throughout the American Civil War, and Lincoln gradually came to adopt Douglass's point of view in the main, leading to the Emancipation Proclamation, and more importantly to sponsoring the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the U.S. Constitution.


Elmcroft1096 t1_jb0tmfy wrote

Anither issue I remember reading about Liberia is that Abolitionists thought of Africa as one large homogeneous place, ignoring the various regions inhabited by different tribes and nations that the African American slaves or their ancestors had come from initially.


phillipgoodrich t1_jb36ghz wrote

Indeed, thus contributing not only to the racist concept, but the impracticality of the entire enterprise.


HDH2506 t1_jb0zil2 wrote

What was the largest walled city in history? How big was it?

Also, how difficult was it to defend?


Stalins_Moustachio t1_jb4m8bp wrote

Hey there. I'm not too sure on the accurate size measures, but I would say that some of the largest walled cities today would definitely include Istanbul (historic Constantinople); Carcassonne, France; Jerusalem; and X'ian, China. Each had their own merits on defences, the most resolute (by historical record) seems to be Istanbul, due to the Theodosian Walls.


The-Esquire t1_jb3h1tj wrote

Why is there so little attention paid to historical working class and peasant fashion, especially for men?

It seems like when it comes to history (mainly before the 1920s), the only folks who are given any attention are the upper (and sometimes middle) classes, and upper class women in particular.
This strikes me as weird, since most folks were not upper class, and so the everyday clothing of the everyman is quite overlooked.
Even when it comes to peasants, the clothing given any attention is usually the stuff worn on special occasions, rather than their work or home clothes.

I am interested in the sort of clothing that would be worn by farmers and workers at the very end of the 1700s and the first half of the 1800s in the areas colonized by the British and United Statesians.


Thibaudborny t1_jb54aw1 wrote

Pretty sure you could find this kind of stuff on academic journals/libraries. I would try those in your area to see if they could yield anything. If you're asking popular history (non-academic) it'll need more kabooms.


The-Esquire t1_jb69d0l wrote

I guess. I am reading an article now that seems to confirm some of what I said:

"Unfortunately, dress history has traditionally concerned itself more with fashionable elites and the middle classes than with the working classes. Although there are some notable exceptions, this is particularly true of studies that address historical periods prior to the twentieth century"


Thibaudborny t1_jb69q1y wrote

Those groups were the ones leaving all the written records, so yeah, not the easiest field of research regardless.


Outrageous-Door8924 t1_jb84hgf wrote

Why was north eastern Europe the geographical goal of Nazi Germany's Lebensraum? Claimed that it was historically lost land of Germans? The fact that it was Slavic land? The sparsely populated areas there?


Doctor_Impossible_ t1_jb890gn wrote

>The fact that it was Slavic land? The sparsely populated areas there?

Prior to WWI, Germany had tried expansion overseas, and found itself promptly cut off, as war commenced, by much superior navies. This expansion was explained by German politicians and thinkers as a natural consequence of population expansion; one required the other, whichever way you worked it out, so post-WWI, with overseas colonies gone, the natural place for territorial expansion would be somewhere safe from naval interference, where Germans could travel back and forth without any other country intervening. Somewhere contiguous with the existing German state would be perfect, for instance. The extermination of 'lesser' races was essential to Nazi ideology, and taking land those races formerly occupied was part and parcel of that, to the extent that it was emphasised that this was the 'natural' thing to do. In order for Germany to expand and become the sole real power in Europe, it would need vast amounts of land, resources, and an even larger population to draw on for labour. The populations already living there were 'destined' to be swept away by the unstoppable might of Germany.


Outrageous-Door8924 t1_jda3o1b wrote

Although I imagined their race-based ideology played big part, you put it all in way more clear, concrete terms and made that easily understandable for an uneducated person (like myself). Thanks for explaining!


Eminence_grizzly t1_jb8z2wu wrote

They also Germanized a lot of Slavic (and Baltic) lands in the Middle Ages, including the land around Berlin, Silesia, Eastern Prussia, etc.


Sgt_Colon t1_jbo05o4 wrote

A not insignificant part of it was irredentist claims to areas inhabited by various 'Germanic' peoples such as the Goths based on archaeology of the time. Areas covered by what are today termed the Wielbark and Chernyakhov archaeological cultures were associated with these 'germanic' people and seen as areas stolen during the migrations by, at present at least, the Slavs. Such as it was, during the invasion eastwards, various places were renamed like Simferopol to "Gotenburg" and Sevastopol to "Theodorichshafen", reflecting this ideological justification.

Post war the old völkisch ideas of migration faced heavy criticism (in no small due to their use in Nazi propaganda) seeing eventual reform with the origin of the Vienna school of thought and criticism of ethnoarchaeology such as Kramer's 1977 “Pots and Peoples”.


Wallo420 t1_jbggme8 wrote

The idea originated from the medieval Teutonic Knights who were a Germanic order similar to the Templars in the holy land but in the Baltic region conquering pagan Slavs. It’s why one of the Nazi symbols is that black cross as this is what the Teutonics wore


en43rs t1_jbjzdew wrote

>it’s why one of the Nazi symbols is that black cross as this is what the Teutonics wore

That's completely false. While it's true that Iron Cross is a reference to the Teutonic Knights it did not originate with the Nazis, it's a Prussian medal that dates back to the Napoleonic Wars. They used it because Prussia has its origins in the Order.

The Nazis used it because it's a German military symbol, but it is not associated with the Nazis in Germany (although it is in the West), it's still the symbol of the German Armed Forces and they still use it to this day on vehicles (here it is on a tankand here it is on an helicopter).


pangs3798 t1_jbj9iuz wrote

Are the German populace aware during WWII that Hitler was murdering millions of Jews on the concentration camps during holocaust? if yes, did they support that event? sorry for my bad English...


en43rs t1_jbjycoz wrote

The short answer is that people did not knew the details and the scale but knew something really bad was happening to the Jews when they were sent East. German soldiers knew more since they were actors of parts of the holocaust, and knew that the death camps were a thing. As for what the average German felt if varied from person to person and is extremely difficult to tell.

For more specific answers this thread links to a lot of excellent answers.


Doctor_Impossible_ t1_jbjfs3r wrote

>Are the German populace aware during WWII that Hitler was murdering millions of Jews on the concentration camps during holocaust?

Yes. The concentration camps were an extensive network of thousands of sites, each one of which took in prisoners far in excess of what it could hold, over the course of the war. Guards, soldiers, and civilians took photographs, sent letters home, and talked with their families about what was going on. The bureaucracy handling the Holocaust itself, dealing with prisoner transfer, administration, cataloguing the belongings of those murdered, etc, was also tens of thousands of people. It was an enormous effort, and everyone in Germany, at some point, witnessed part of what was going on. The Nazis were mostly careful not to expose exactly what was happening, because of their earlier experience murdering people in the Aktion T4 programme, which roused protests, but the Germans knew people were being murdered.

Even if it hadn't been common knowledge and gossiped about everywhere (the first concentration camp, Dachau, opened in 1933), many people uncovered evidence of what was going on in concentration camps relatively early in the war (Witold Pilecki sent out reports in 1940, for instance), and this was sent on to other countries, including the UK, which announced the existence of the camps, and their real purpose, on the BBC world service in 1941.

>if yes, did they support that event?

It's difficult to characterise the German attitude to the Nazi government, but most Germans never actively opposed anything the Nazis did. The vast majority of Germans simply 'went along' with it, even if they privately disagreed. German resistance to Nazi actions was very, very sparse. There is precisely one protest we know about. Antisemitism was practically a national pastime, which served to quell a lot of dissent.


phillipgoodrich t1_jbowa8m wrote

Significantly, the Germans of Weimar, after WWII, almost universally professed total ignorance of what was happening in the concentration camps of Germany and Eastern Europe. But....Buchenwald is approximately six miles from Weimar, and in the last two years of the war, as the work forces were rapidly depleted to replenish the military losses, prisoners in shackles were brought to the local factories, standing side-by-side at assembly lines with civilian workers. How those workers could ever claim ignorance is known only to them now, but yes, of course they knew. They all knew.

But as to why it was tolerated, once an extremist group in any country takes control of the military, the civilian sector is rapidly subdued, and understands that the only two responses to authoritarian behavior are tolerance or extermination. That is an extremely powerful motivation, be it in Nazi Germany, Egypt, Iran, China, Russia, or Uganda.


AbdallahAwad t1_jbny0bl wrote

Is it known how much money the Wieliczka Salt Mine made on average in the 14th-15th century?


pluto-st t1_jb3pime wrote

A quick google search tells me helicopters were used toward the end of the war. If helicopters were used since the start, would they have had a major impact on the war? Would they have needed to be more advanced?


Doctor_Impossible_ t1_jb6yam0 wrote

>If helicopters were used since the start, would they have had a major impact on the war?

Production at larger scales impacts production of other aircraft, as materiel and, especially, production capability is not infinite. There definitely is a use case for heliborne assault, but that needs models capable of substantial troop-carrying capacity, and for those to be accompanied by very focused SEAD in order to not become a bloodbath, and there were rather a lot of AA guns that would have found helicopters a juicy target. Even if the helicopters are physically designed, built, and capable of doing something like replacing a paradrop on somewhere like Crete, for instance, the doctrine isn't there. It's not just about the airframes.

You can't use them as gunships because they don't have guided weaponry and they're not capable of outgunning likely targets. Any helicopter flying in WWII would have come up against a panoply of 20mm, 40mm, and larger, AA guns. AAA would have a field day against a helicopter formation. You would need to develop (again) doctrine and training in order to avoid catastrophe, as well as deploying more forward airbases in order to have them within operational range of enemies. The logistics to keep them running are not inconsiderable.


pluto-st t1_jb80m6q wrote

Thank you so much. Fantastic response. Thanks for taking the time!


bangdazap t1_jb5bjzr wrote

I think they needed to be more advanced. In the Korean War helicopters were mainly used for search and rescue.

But who knows? The Germans (IIRC) scrapped plans to station gyrocopters (they're an earlier form of helicopter) on their ships on the outbreak of WWII. Maybe if they had used them, other nations would have followed suit and made more advanced helicopters. There was a lot more money for R&D during WWII compared to the Korean War.


pluto-st t1_jb80pfg wrote

Very thankful for your response! Thank you for taking the time!


OsoCheco t1_jb9pm10 wrote

Well, even today, armed helicopters are... questionable. They are great against inferior enemy, but in open conflicts, they are just giant slow target waiting to be shot down. Their main selling point is the ability to hover over battleground, which is simply not possible if the enemy has proper AA weapons.


Jack6220 t1_jb4w2rx wrote

Is there any assassinations out of the US I can research for a project?

Just not up to my assassination lore lmao


Wallo420 t1_jb6tkos wrote

Conrad de Monferat was assassinated by THE Assassins during the Crusdaes. In the original Assassins Creed you assassinate his father William de Monferat as a nod to this. If you’re doing a project, I’d recommend reading The Assassins by Bernard Lewis as they did a few throughout the period. Or you could just keep it simple and do Julius Ceasar :)


Jack6220 t1_jb7rybo wrote

Lmao I was thinking like Rosa Luxemburg and the Spartacus revolution but I feel like everyone in my class would be too out of touch


bangdazap t1_jb5cu7i wrote

The assassination of president John F Kennedy in 1963 is the one that has been written about the most. Lots of unsound conspiracy theories in particular. It's a commonly expressed view that his killing changed America, that he would've pulled out of Vietnam etc.


Jack6220 t1_jb5ffv4 wrote

Out of the US?


bangdazap t1_jb5s4ad wrote

Oh, I misunderstood, maybe Patrice Lumumba, the first elected leader of the independent Congo then?. They recently returned his remains (a single gold tooth) to Congo. After his death his body was dissolved in acid.


OsoCheco t1_jb9p01h wrote

The assasination of Reinhard Heydrich, the only high ranking Nazi who got killed during the war.

There's plenty of documents about it, secondary effects and even some controversy (was it worth it?).


phillipgoodrich t1_jbc8tjn wrote

Alexander II of Russia might be a timely choice that could expand the audience's awareness of Russian rule pre-revolution.


pangs3798 t1_jbj8riq wrote

the assassination of Benigno Aquino III of Philippines which spark revolution and overthrew the dictatorship of the marcos regime


jrhooo t1_jblvsm8 wrote

The Herhausen assassination.

A terror group assasinated a German banker in 1989.

The part of unique interest is the method. The banker travelled everywhere in a heavily armored car. So, they rigged up a IED.

They put a bicycle where his car was going to pass, filled a satchel on the bike with explosive, and rigged up an infrared laser as the trigger. When the bankers car passed through the laser … boom.

But the key point, the explosive didn’t kill the banker. The car would have possibly survived that.

They’d put a copper plate in front of the explosive charge, so when the explosive blew up, they turned the copper plate into a giant molten copper bullet, flying at (through) the banker’s car at hypersonic speed.

This technique, using an “explosively formed penetrator” is common in military weapons, like RPGs and anti-tank rockets,

But building one into an IED and using an infrared laser to activate it, these were breakthrough techniques in 1989. This may be the first time they’d been used.


jrhooo t1_jblw9gn wrote

>assassinations out of the US

Wait wait wait, I hate to be terribly cliche here but

Is nobody going to say…

Franz Ferdinand?


justacouchpotato1414 t1_jb5mxv4 wrote

If mughals are of mongol and turkic origin, why did they speak Persian?


Doctor_Impossible_ t1_jb61xqa wrote

The Mughals are from a long Turco-Persian tradition, though, which matters more than our modern concept of their 'race'. Persian was interrupted as a lingua franca in the Persian region by Arabic, but a new form of Persian, assisted by co-opting Arabic vocabulary and script, became popular because it was used in centres of culture and power, which were focused around rulers. This spread as the various Turco-Persian empires spread, with Persian often having centre stage as the courtly language, but also becoming endorsed as an 'official' language, and even when it was not, it became more popular for songs, poetry, and literature, and was often the first choice as a lingua franca at the borders of the empire.


Thibaudborny t1_jbdl7g9 wrote

Geography. Turkic tribes were converted by the Persian part of the islamic world. In terms of culture and civilization, the Persian world endured in the bosom of the Arab conquests, somewhat comparable to how Rome conquered the Hellenistic world & absorbed its culture. Consider that prior to being absorbed into the islamic world, the Turkic groups lived in tribal (semi)nomadic societies that had little to offer in terms of civilization in light of running an empire. All of this, from higher culture to administrative trappings, the Turkic groups learned from the Persian world. As the Seljuqs burst out from behind the Oxus and into the islamic world, they took that all the way to the gates of Jerusalem & into Anatolia.


themoralmenace t1_jb6nbje wrote

How did the Etruscans attach their bridgework or generally protheses to their mouths?

What kinds of tools did they use during those procedures?


Percytheplatapus t1_jb768ad wrote

Media especially film likes to show how a person or animals death makes the fellow allied troops among them so angry that they then push on to renew a attack that had faltered, is there any historical occurrences of this ever happening ?

a good example would be the film glory causing the attack to be renewed upon his death,


NewBrightness t1_jbcx2o9 wrote

Does anyone know of any cohesive history related yt channels I can binge watch to learn about different cultures or historical events?


AccoSpoot t1_jbl0u90 wrote

Did moonshine exist before the prohibition?


january_dreams t1_jbmlcjk wrote

Does anyone know where I can find a good list of the ranks on a merchant ship from the 18th or early 19th century? Google has not been particularly helpful. Thanks!


iloveusomatchalatte t1_jbnag6g wrote

does anyone have history notes on Stalin for Alevel and the Cold war? thank youuu


user27900 t1_jb7xcx6 wrote

What happened to those rebels in Germany after WW2 Can anyone give some brief history of them? I here some story that after Germany surrender they were killed or put into camps by those former Germany police and SS who have become peace keepers of the provisional government and the Alince just sit there and watch all these happened.


calijnaar t1_jbbc1yg wrote

Whatcrebels are we talking about here? Very few people who actively opposed the nazis actually survived. I don't know of any who were killed after the surrender. Also, denazification was quite far from perfect and a lot of former nazis (and people who more or less willingly supported the nazi regime in some way) managed to rather seamlessly go 8ver into the FRG, but I don't think anyone knowingly utilised former SS as "peace keepers of the provisional government".


phillipgoodrich t1_jboxezp wrote

There is an interesting little anecdote along these lines that I learned from visiting the site museum at Buchenwald, Germany, provided by their federal government. There was a prison population of communists and Russian POW's housed there in the last year of WWI, and in the waning months of the war, when Buchenwald fell to the Allies, that the guards turned their weapons over to the prisoners, along with the keys to the gates and barracks, and simply traded places with the prisoners. It must have looked very weird at the time, and resonates the same today.