Submitted by AutoModerator t3_121l60d 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.

MadDany94 t1_jdptu6m wrote

Its very stereotypical for medieval themed fiction writers to make duos like this: Royalty (Or at least anyone with a high status) gets saved by a commoner when they were younger, they become best friends, then said commoner because something like their right hand man. Either they become a military officer/guard for them or an advisor.

So that makes me wonder: Has similar stuff like that actually happened in history?


[deleted] t1_jdre9d8 wrote



LateInTheAfternoon t1_jdu533t wrote

Many misconceptions here. Plebs =/= Plebeians (in the strict sense for there was of course overlap) and both Augustus (as Octavius, before his adoption by Caesar) and Agrippa were of Plebeian families. Both also belonged to the Roman nobilty, later called Nobiles, which had (starting in the 4th century BC) been opened up for Plebeian families and very soon became flooded with them as the wealth required to move up in society more and more became accessible as the Roman empire^1 expanded. This influx was the more impactful as the number of Patrician families would steadily decline over time. The dichotomy of the early Roman republic of Patricians vs Plebeians was replaced by the dichotomy of Nobiles + Equites vs Plebs; the new order had been firmly solidified by the last quarter of the 4th century BC if not earlier. The Equites and a large part of the Nobiles (within a century the majority) were comprised of wealthy Plebeians. The laws enacted during the course of the 4th century allowed for Plebeians to be eligible for every political office (thus giving them seats in the senate as well, as it was made up of ex-magistrates) and one law even specified that each year at least 1 of the 2 consuls had to be a Plebeian (by the late republic there were streaks of several consecutive years with only Plebeian consuls). To belong to the Nobiles you had to have the wealth required for the top orders of society (as decided by the recurring censuses) and you would have to have distinguished ancestors that had served as magistrates and senators. The only significant distinctions remaining between Patricians and Plebeians were that the former were still ineligible for the office of tribune of the plebs and certain priestly offices were barred for Plebeians.

Note 1: following Finlay I use 'Roman empire' to denote the large territorial extent of the state of Republic Rome and 'Roman Empire' to denote the government which replaced the republic as well as the territorial extent of that government.


BanjoMothman t1_jdqmaty wrote

Peter the Great has multiple famous examples. Alexander Menshikov was his close advisor and it is suggested by some historians that he was a stable boy as a child. Catherine I, Peter's wife and Empress after his death, was born Marta Helena Skowrońska and lived a life of poverty/peasantry/possibly slavery before becoming mistress to Peter.

Abram Gannibal was originally a slave purchased as a boy from Africa by Peter the Great, who recieved an education and became a military engineer/nobleman into the time of Elizabeth's rule if my memory serves correctly.

Scholars argue whether Daniel from the Book of Daniel in the Hebrew Bible was a real person or not, but his story certainly counts if so.


jezreelite t1_jdqno3t wrote

While not commoners per se, William Marshal, Otto de Grandson, and William Montagu were all members of minor nobility at best who became friends with kings. William Marshal was a companion of Henry the Young King, Otto of Edward I of England, and William Montagu of Edward III of England.

Another example, though later in history, was Aleksandr Danilovich Menshikov, the favourite and confidant of Peter the Great. Unlike the three I mentioned above, Menshikov was not even of gentry status. Another example was Aleksey Grigoryevich Razumovsky, a Ukrainian Cossack who became the lover and probably morganatic husband of Peter the Great's daughter, Empress Yelisaveta.


Newgate1996 t1_jdma9zb wrote

Do we have any accurate depictions or renderings of the cities of Nineveh and Babylon?


quantdave t1_jds2h8r wrote

While the basic plans are known from surveys and digs and fragmentary accounts survive along with the occasional tablet or relief showing a peripheral part of the layout (at least for Babylon), there isn't enough for a reliable cityscape or reconstruction of daily life. A lot remains to be excavated, though, so hopefully more will turn up when conditions are favourable.


Eminence_grizzly t1_jdmis3i wrote

Were there any precedents in US history when a president lost after one term in office and then tried to run again in four years?


Historical_Exchange t1_jdmjvkb wrote

Tried and won

"Stephen Grover Cleveland was the 22nd and 24th president of the United States, the only president to serve two non-consecutive terms."


Elmcroft1096 t1_jdnahkt wrote

Cleveland's wife is reported to have said to the wife of Benjamin Harrison (the 23rd President) "don't change the drapes or furnishings, we'll be back in 4 years" when Cleveland's term as the 22nd President ended.


jezreelite t1_jdmluct wrote

Theodore Roosevelt comes close. He spent two terms in office, resigned, and then ran a third time in 1912, but lost.


najing_ftw t1_jdmguom wrote

What first made you choose history as your career?


anthropology_nerd t1_jdmybey wrote

In second grade there was a book of U.S. presidents at the front of the class. If you finished your assignment early you could pick up the book and read while the other students completed their work. For some reason I loved the book, and I decided to memorize the cause of death for every president. My teacher, instead of responding to my questions about typhoid with, "Nice little kids don't talk about death and diseases," helped me look up more information in the encyclopedia.

Shout out to Mrs. Capps for encouraging me to dive deeper into the history of human health and disease. You were the best.


CrafterCat33 t1_jdqnizt wrote

When I was around 8 or 9, I realised that I knew a lot of English and British monarchs, so I challenged myself to learn all of them. I only got more interested from there.

Not a professional (yet) but that's how I became into history.


AlexisErudite t1_jdnf6yc wrote

How does culture shift occur? I notice that in the early modern period and the desire to create nations based on language lines and so on means that when nations/kingdoms wanted to incorporate new land, they also had to change the language. How long does this tend to take and how does it happen? I have read a lot about the japan-isation of Okinawa and the Americanisation of Hawaii but I am wondering if there are any tell tale signs of attempting to force a degree assimilation in order to incorporate lands.


quantdave t1_jdpz0tf wrote

The process can vary from outright suppression of an indigenous language to adoption of a language seen as more useful (e.g. more widely spoken) or conferring higher status. Trade, urbanisation, public education and mass media each accelerated the process and offered dominant groups new means to drive the process still further.

Tell-tale signs of forced assimilation might include withholding education in an indigenous language or denying access to public services or employment for its speakers (unless there really weren't the numbers for it to be a viable proposition), or suppressing or penalising its publication or broadcast. Promotion of a non-indigenous religious model or perception of the past are also used to erode traditional allegiances and identity.

Another top-down approach is of course literal colonisation, settlement of speakers of the privileged language, often with economic advantages (e.g. land grants, government jobs or contracts), forcing native speakers to adopt the dominant tongue for work or sometimes even making them a minority.

It isn't always coercive or associated with migration, and sometimes the "metropolitan" language is itself partly assimilated into a pidgin or creole tongue including indigenous elements: the most widespread lingua franca drawing on different elements is probably Swahili, grammatically Bantu but with large borrowings from Arabic and spoken far beyond the former area of Arab dominance: in Europe, Celtic cultural expressions are similarly thought to have spread ahead of any movement of people or change of ruling elite.


Petey57 t1_jdnxfze wrote

At the beginning of the 20th century, when people washed more regularly, and used deodorant, was there a backlash against those who didn't?


negrote1000 t1_jdp9xuo wrote

What was vodka made of before the introduction of the potato?

Heck, what did potato-eating cultures in Europe eat before that?


quantdave t1_jdpuk4s wrote

Mainly cereals - for food and spirits alike: in eastern and north-central Europe that would have meant predominantly rye. In the west and south wheat was the preferred foodgrain, though barley and oats were also consumed, especially among the poor (wheat being more expensive): barley was of course also used for beer and oats as feed for horses and oxen. Just about anything that might me made into booze probably has been at some point, though potatoes never really took off as source of spirits even when they were Ireland's staple food. Vodka's still predominantly made from grain, though now maize or rice get included, the first an introduction from Mexico and the latter little known outside southern Europe until the last few centuries.


GSilky t1_jdrrwzi wrote

Vodka is alcohol and water, that's it. All alcohol is the same thing regardless of the source. They used grain.


__Claire_Memes__ t1_jdvoei9 wrote

For my AP English final I’m doing an inquiry project on the cultural rebranding of Japan post WWll, and how most people now associate Japan with things such as anime, video games, manga, cute things etc.. Forgetting the fact that they were one of the three principal players in the Axis alliance or all war crimes they committed. For reference my project is titled something along the lines of “ How is Hello Kitty the result of a nation wide cover up?” . I found one book called “Embracing Defeat” but I’m not sure if it’s quite what I’m looking for. I plan on reading “The Rape of Nanking” because it’s been on my need to read list for awhile but I would appreciate the help finding a book about the rebranding/ possible cover up. Thank you in advance for any advice or suggestions!


en43rs t1_jdvucr1 wrote

So, just to be clear, you may come at this from the wrong angle. What I mean is that if you're looking for a book that will show that Japan exported an "anime and high tech" image specifically in order to cover up war crimes... you won't. Because this didn't happen. They didn't invent Hello Kitty to cover up Nankin. This happened in the late 70s, three decades after the end of the war. It is unrelated.

But, that doesn't mean there isn't a nugget of truth there. You'll have more success by searching how Japan became a democracy... without changing its political class. Kishi Nobusuke, who exploited Machuria in the 30s and was a minister when Japan declared war on the US... was also prime minister of Japan from 1957 to 1960. He said after the war "Strange isn’t it? We are all democrats now.". By the way, he is the grandfather of former Prime Minister Abe Shinzo.

Embracing Defeat is great for that, it covers some major events of that turn: the Tokyo War trials (and how they found a few scapegoat) and the US occupation which swept the role of the emperor in the war under the rug because the cold war was more important and they wanted a friendly Japan.

Do not look at specific war crimes or 80s pop culture, more at the immediate extremely gray aftermath in the late 40s early 50s.


__Claire_Memes__ t1_jdwbpor wrote

Thank you, I think that the way I framed my question was possibly misleading I definitely don’t believe “Hello Kitty was because of war crimes” I was definitely using it as move of an attention grabber even though it was a little deceiving, but more of a timeline of when outsiders POV of Japan begin to shift from then to now.

The morally gray bit in the 40s-50s is something I want to talk about as well as the Tokyo War Trials. I will definitely try coming at it at a differ angle I greatly appreciate the help.


en43rs t1_jdx1053 wrote

Yeah I figure, I wanted to be sure. You could also look at how the Showa emperor (Hirohito) was used as a pubic figure after the war. From god like leader of a nation to a nice old man in a suit who liked marine biology when he opened the Tokyo Olympic Games of 1964.

For an easy source to use the podcast History of Japan has a lot of episodes/series on the emperor, the US occupation, Nanking, specific politicians, so on. Pretty solid and well research stuff. Easy to use.


__Claire_Memes__ t1_jdx2h9s wrote

Thank you for all of these sources and all your help I’m so grateful. I wanted to do this topic because I wanted to learn more. From this thread alone I’ve learned an incredible amount. Thank you again


TheGreatOneSea t1_jdw2cle wrote

Are you focusing on their perception in the US, Asia, in Japan itself, or all the NATO states?

If you try to discuss all of them, you'll probably end up with a 300+ page essay, because the issue of Japanese war crimes is incredibly messy, given the sheer number of nations involved in covering every atrocity.

I will say this though, the "cover up" wasn't so much policy as it was practicality: the US was mostly concerned with the treatment of US prisoners at the time, with the expectation that other countries would follow up for their own people with documentation. This being the era of paper, there wasn't much of an exchange of information between the countries, and usually amounted to "Japanese soldiers shot a bunch of civilians in this area" anyway.

Attaching actual names to such events was basically impossible without resorting to torturing soldiers for information ("Itou killed someone? Which Itou? You don't know? What a pity.") and killing thousands of Japanese soldiers just in case would somewhat defy the point of trying to rebuild Japan.

Regardless, I do recommend starting with "Japanese War Crimes Records at the National Archives," because it's both free, and goes into a lot of the difficulties with the war crime trials. For the Japanese cultural shift itself, you should probably decide on a specific time and place to first.


__Claire_Memes__ t1_jdwcmwv wrote

I’m definitely focusing on the US perception as well as Japanese citizens since from what I understand they brush over WWll till Hiroshima and completely denying Nanking which is why I wanted that book as a specific source. Though I could be wrong.

Thank you for the Archives source I had no clue about it. I’m excited to check it out when I get the chance. Thank you for the help.


bangdazap t1_jdvtqrr wrote

Be sure to include the time Hirohito visited Disneyland in 1975.


NarutoUzuchiha t1_jdvoisn wrote

How was a descendant of King's younger sons treated?

For example ; 'Capet' had a cadet house of 'de Dreux' which descended from fifth son of Louis VI of France. They were made counts but were they treated as normal counts? or was there something like royal counts?
Similarly, how were bastard descendants of kings treated if compared to legitimate younger son's descendants.


en43rs t1_jdvvggb wrote

From the 16th century onward, in France they had a specific status. The younger son (or daughter) of a king would be a "Son/Daughter of France", their child would be a "Grandson/daughter of France" and their descendant "Prince/Princess of the Blood". (note this only applies to legitimate descendants). This meant that they were indeed treated as superior to other nobles. They were considered "Pairs de France" (Peers of France) a specific status which meant they had the highest status in court after the direct royal family.


NarutoUzuchiha t1_jdyofuj wrote

Thank You and is prince of blood similar to prince du sang that the above answer mentioned?


en43rs t1_jdytclu wrote

Exact same thing, I just translated it into English.


jezreelite t1_jdwxh95 wrote

During the times of the Direct Capetians, the official status of younger Capetian sons was no more exalted than whatever title they were granted. This includes such men as Robert of Burgundy, Hugues of Vermandois, Robert of Dreux, Pierre of Courtenay, Robert of Artois, Alphonse of Poitiers, Charles of Anjou (ancestor of the Capetian House of Anjou), Robert of Clermont (ancestor of the Bourbons), Charles of Valois, and Louis of Évreux. In practice, however, being the sons and brothers of kings gave them unofficial levels of clout and often greater wealth than non-royal counts. Charles of Anjou and Charles of Valois, for example, were able to muster the resources try to claim foreign crowns, though only the former succeeded. Charles of Anjou's descendants, who became kings of Naples and Hungary, enjoyed generally close ties with their French cousins: Charles of Valois married his double second cousin, Marguerite of Naples, Countess of Anjou; Louis X's second wife was Clementia of Hungary; and Louis I of Anjou was designated as heir by Jeanne I of Naples, which subsequent Valois, including Louis II of Anjou, Rene of Anjou, Charles VIII of France, and Louis XII of France, became obsessed with making good on.

However, again, this wasn't officially granted precedence. This is best illustrated when Isabelle of France supposedly protested her son, Edward, giving homage to her cousin, Philippe VI of France, because Edward was the son of a king while Philippe was only the son of a count — nevermind that the count had been her own paternal uncle, Charles of Valois.

The accession of the Valois kings, of which the aforementioned Philippe VI was the first, saw the creation of the title prince du sang, though agnatic descendants they wouldn't been given official ranking over all other members of the peerage until 1576.

How the other cadet branches other than Capetian House of Anjou fared differed: the Vermandois went extinct within three generations and the Courtenays' fortunes were ruined by their adventures in Byzantium, after which half of the family that went east took up residence at the court of Charles of Anjou and married into his family and the few that stayed in France declined into genteel poverty and political irrelevance. In the 17th and 18th centuries, the Courtenays tried to claim the status of princes du sang, but without success. However, the Dreux and Bourbons did very well for themselves, all things considered: the last member of the House of Dreux was Anne of Bretagne, the twice queen of France, and the Bourbons eventually got to become kings of France and later, Spain and the Two Sicilies.

I'll do bastard sons in another comment.


NarutoUzuchiha t1_jdyo1y0 wrote

Thank You for your detailed answers. I would hope to learn about bastards as well soon.
Oh and as far as i can remember the Vermandois house began when prince of France married to the then Carolingian Countess of Vermandois which also resulted in end of the Karling line in 11th century.


jezreelite t1_jdx3ad2 wrote

After the start of the High Middle Ages, bastard sons of kings held only as much status as their fathers' felt like granting them. Succession of bastard sons to royal and noble titles was far from uncommon in the early Middle Ages (see: William the Conqueror or Ramiro I of Aragon) but it declined rapidly after the mid-11th century, except in Wales and Scandinavia. A number of French and English medieval kings most often arranged for acknowledged bastard sons to marry heiresses or get high-ranking positions in the church.

Examples of the former are Robert of Gloucester, Philippe Hurepel of Boulogne, William Longespée of Salisbury, and Richard de Chilham and an example of the latter are Geoffrey, Archbishop of York. Some royal bastards, such as Philippe Hurepel; Joan, Lady of Wales; Marguerite de Belleville; and the Beauforts; were legitimated by the Pope, though often with the proviso that they were barred from royal succession.

Sometimes, bastard siblings and their legitimate siblings were close; for instance, the unfortunate legitimate sons of Louis I of Orléans seem to have adored their bastard half-brother, Jean de Dunois, who loved them in return and kept watch of the family possessions while his half-brothers were being held captive in England. On the other hand, relations between Geoffrey, Archbishop of York, and his legitimate half-brothers were sometimes tense, though that's not too surprising since relations between his four legitimate brothers put the fun in dysfunctional.


NarutoUzuchiha t1_jdyn5y9 wrote

Oh...thanks for this detailed answer.
by the way how were bastards treated in court as compared to their legitimate half brothers?


en43rs t1_jdzu83u wrote

To add to this and go forward to Early Modern France, if the child was the son of a noblewoman they were usually treated well. Basically they were in a "in between" status: they had royal blood but absolutely no claim to the throne. So they were respected but always as high ranking nobles, not official member of the royal family.

The Duc d'Angoulême (bastard son of the French King Charles IX) was even more in a peculiar situation: his father was part of the Valois dynasty, but after 1589 (death of the last Valois king)... there were no longer any (legitimate) Valois. The crown went to their distant cousins the Bourbons (from which we get Henry IV, Louis XIV and so on). But he remained, like a remnant of that family. For example he was chosen as ambassador to the Holy Roman Empire in 1620, him being of the Valois blood made him suitable as a symbolic representative of the crown.

So yeah, legitimized bastard had a high status (none of this game of throne non sense)... but always on the side. A rank below the "proper" family.


NarutoUzuchiha t1_je0whd8 wrote

why couldn't Duc d'Angoulême gain supporters and usurp the throne from his Bourbon cousins?


en43rs t1_je117he wrote

I could point to the fact that France was in a civil war and that he was very close to the future Henry IV who was a very powerful war leader, or the fact that he was 16 when his uncle died...

But there would still be a problem. That would be entertaining the idea that he could inherit the throne. Despite what is often said the Kings of France did not have unlimited power. There is a set of "fundamental laws" that even they had to respect. Those included the fact that only males could inherit and transfer right to the throne, that the king could not choose his successor (it was always his closest male relative, often his eldest child)... but also the fact that the King had to have a legitimate claim.

He is not a legitimate son (even if he is recognized and was given land) and so he cannot get the throne. Ever.

Despite what Game of Thrones and Hollywood may say (although the Last Duel shows this quite well) the Middle Ages/Modern Era was very legalist. Laws were essential. Charles d'Angoulême (later Duke of Angoulême) has no claim. He cannot be the King of France no more than he can be the Pope or the Emperor of China.

If we imagine an alternate universe were Angouleme was the most powerful and popular noble around (which... he was not), who somehow raised an army and took the throne.. he wouldn't be legitimate. He would have to act as a conqueror who took it by force and the whole of Europe would probably gang up on him to install whatever distant relative to the throne they had as a "legitimate" puppet king. Even William the Conqueror who took over England had to pretend that he had a claim (the previous king "apparently" promised it to him).


Of course in real life if that had happened, he would have found a justification. But the truth is that as a bastard he was forever a B tier noble without a claim.


NarutoUzuchiha t1_je55p5g wrote

woah...that's news to me...
I thought a bastard could inherit if the king had no issues or siblings or close relatives (uncles, 1st/2nd cousins) but seems like they will be totally ignored in any case and a very distant relative would be preferred over them any day..
By the way, i have read somewhere that Henry VIII didn't have any legitimate son until...well...Edward VI popped out and before that he was planning to designate Henry FitzRoy (his bastard through Elizabeth Blount) as his heir.
Is this somewhat true?


en43rs t1_je59yo0 wrote

>I thought a bastard could inherit if the king had no issues or siblings or close relatives (uncles, 1st/2nd cousins)

Not in France. Now, if they couldn't find any heir (which would be impossible by the late middle ages, everyone noble in Europe was related to everyone) mayyyybe but as I said when you get past the 11th century everyone is more or less related to everyone and can reliably prove it.

>i have read somewhere that Henry VIII didn't have any legitimate son until...well...Edward VI popped out and before that he was planning to designate Henry FitzRoy (his bastard through Elizabeth Blount) as his heir.

Is this somewhat true?

As my example may suggest I studied French history (specifically the 17th century), I know nothing about English royal history, sorry.


NarutoUzuchiha t1_je8rpg0 wrote

it's fine sir...thanks a lot, i came to learn loads of new info thnx to u


thissweetlifeofmine t1_jdwn4ww wrote

Hi all So recently took a few visits to museums here in London And it's kinda dawned on me that since leaving education I've lost pretty much all my general history knowledge ( history used to be one of my favourite subjects)

I'd like to re educate myself I guess about general history

Does anyone have any tips or recommendations on fun and creative ways to go about doing so ?


MeatballDom t1_jdyfdhz wrote

How did you gain the general history you had before? Through years of sitting through courses, years of watching television, years of watching the news or hearing it discussed, there's no Matrix option of just uploading this stuff and large general histories are overall not very helpful and will leave you with more bad understandings than good.

So do you need to sit in a classroom for 10 years again? No. But you do need to start slowly, and build up the knowledge. Pick a topic you are somewhat familiar with as a base point. Read a book about it, figure out which parts of that were interesting to you, read a book about that. Look through the sources that were discussed, look through the historians that were argued against, read their works. Branch out or in depending on how interested or not you are.

Don't hyperfocus either. One common trap is for people to start reading a history book and feeling like they need to look up every single person, every single place, every single event mentioned that they don't automatically know. Instead, just take a note, and come back to it later if you feel like you want to. If you try and master every single page from day one you're going to get overwhelmed and more confused than anything.


Doctor_Impossible_ t1_jdx0jko wrote

There isn't really one work or bit of media that is going to catch you up on 'general history'. You might as well start reading a lot of Wikipedia articles or something, seeing as a lot of pop history coverage is, quite frankly, bad. If you need a book, you could try A Short History of Nearly Everything, by Bryson, who at least hangs a lot of detail (albeit too much irrelevant minutiae of persons) on his prose, but if you want quality historical knowledge you are going to have to pick a particular part of history and then look for good books covering it.


quantdave t1_jdx6w87 wrote

Thanks for reminding me, I'm due for a trip before the Easter throngs. And I need to take a tape measure to the V&A, I wish they'd give exhibits' measurements.

"Fun and creative" seems best done with other people: others will be in the same boat, and you can pool resources. See if there's a group interested in whatever aspects take your fancy? Local would be better, but online's a start, and you can trade ideas and maybe get something going. Maybe arrange group museum visits followed by a discussion?

For updating your knowledge, I recommend starting from some topic of particular interest and then radiating out from there, chronologically, geographically or thematically, or all three: that way you can take it at your own pace rather than biting off too much all at once (which reminds me again, I need to read up on Japan, too long on my "to do" list).


thissweetlifeofmine t1_jdx8qrc wrote

What are you planning on measuring at the v&a ? I'll have to have a look online as I wouldn't know where to start in person Food history and the Tudors have always been a keen favourite of mine so I think I'll go from there !

Thanks for the advice I've always loved history but it just seems to have escaped me a bit with life


quantdave t1_jdxeumb wrote

The width of a roll of fabric: luckily the length doesn't matter as that varied, so I don't need to see that! Standard widths are a constant issue, and i have one in mind that I want to test: the piece is later than the period I'm looking at, but the measurements may have persisted. It wouldn't prove anything, but it would be suggestive.

It's so easy to lose what we learned at school as life takes its toll of our mental storage space - but oddly I find a lot of it's still buried away, waiting to be re-awakened. I still haven't found a use for the Blanca Manca estancia, but I'm sure one will turn up.

PS. Food and Tudors are each an excellent place to start, with enormous potential for branching out - agriculture, trade, European affairs, empire... and Tudors are always in vogue.


Birdygamer19 t1_jdyry8x wrote

What's your favorite Melee A Trois conflict in history?

Melee a Trois is when two or more factions are participating in a war or conflict. If you've played Dynasty Warriors, your allies would be blue, the main enemies would be red and rogue armies are yellow.

History is packed with armed conflicts and wars, so out of all of them, which one did you like that involved more than two factions?


Thibaudborny t1_je4n4ai wrote

The Wars of the Diadochi (323-275 BCE)... absolute pandemonium.


jezreelite t1_je55dhd wrote

The Lancastrian phase of the Hundred Years' War: English vs. Armagnac/Dauphinist French and then there were the Burgundian French who were sometimes allies of the two other sides.

Also, the Russian Civil War. The two main factions were the Reds and the Whites, but there was also various separatists, the Allied and Central Powers, Black Army, and the so-called Green armies of peasants.


Ok-Abbreviations7445 t1_jdytidd wrote

one thing i really couldn't rap my head around was how quickly USA and Britain became close buddies after the revolutionary war, basically almost less than a century they were forming repairing pacts with each other like working together against the spanish, and then after that working together to form the Japan/china they wanted, and then after that literally fighting side by side in the 2 world wars. It's such a short list because it's barely 2 centuries since the revolution war. and now Britain and the USA are the closest of friends/allies/trade partners.

im probably leaving a lot out but i'd like to know ur opinions on it


MeatballDom t1_jdzgsyz wrote

That's still a lot of time.

You have the rebellion itself, but that's over by the mid 1780s. There's definitely still a lot of tension though and these come to a climax in 1812. This is because just because the war ended it doesn't mean all the involvement did, and all the money and investments went away. There's still a vested interest.

The Monroe Doctrine in the 1820s is the official notice of "stay away" I think this is the point to draw the line.

Now think about what happens afterwards in both countries. Think about what the Monroe Doctrine represents. It's not "America protecting its allies in the continent" it's "America claiming these territories as their own sphere of influence" England still has the other half of the world to push its own imperialist tendencies. We're no longer colonising, but we're still reaping the benefits out of every place we can find and bringing them home.

And sure, there are some disputes after this, but overall they're not really the end of days type stuff. It's a lot of chest bumping more than sword shaking. Even with the Second US Rebellion in the 1860s the British considered getting involved just to tip the scales a bit in their favour, but overall realised that diplomacy would win the day, and it was better to just sit back and wait and act accordingly afterwards.

This sparked a more open and diplomatic approach which had already been growing. Better to work things out, even we have to act a bit tough for votes, than have young people go die fighting each other. Especially as both were now monumental powers. It's easier to ally with them and use each others strengths and say "hey, look, we scuffled, but we're both from the same cloth" by this point people that fought in the American rebellion or the war of 1812 are no longer alive, or certainly not the majority of the population, there's not that same animosity. "You scratch my back, and help secure trade in the region, which we'll help make you a part of, I scratch your back and I help ensure a peaceful Europe beneficial to you"

So when WWI approaches, the US realised how important it was to keep the Brits as an ally, and to keep them powerful, if it meant a safer Atlantic for their own interest, especially against growing nationalist groups (in particular Germany). The actions of WWI consolidated the US's thoughts on Germany and similar groups, and shone the importants of an ally in Britain. After the war they had to work together to try and rebuild, strengthening them more and realising again the need for continued cooperation, which would continue to prove itself useful.

In short: It's easy to look back at big events of centuries and go "why aren't they hating each other?" but in reality, people care more about what's happening NOW than what happened before they were born. Yes, there are certainly groups which harbour some amazingly longstanding feuds, but even a lot of those still have some relatively diplomatic relationships. A lot can happen in a few generations.


en43rs t1_jdzsytb wrote

>"why aren't they hating each other?"

French and German relations are way more interesting and surprising from this point of view. From Napoleon (who humiliated Prussia) to 1870 to WW1 and WW2... France and Germany went from extremely bitter rivals, for generations (way more than the UK and US ever was let's be honest) to close allies in a few decades after WW2.

Hell, Franco-English relations are also surprising in a similar way (although it took more time).


quantdave t1_jdzg21a wrote

Indeed it took a good deal less than a century: only a decade after the 1812 war London was proposing a joint declaration against Europe's monarchies seizing territory in the Americas; Monroe chose to go it alone, but Britain backed the policy despite implicitly being among those being warned off. Trade shows a still faster recovery in the 1780s and 1810s: within a few years of each war you'd think nothing had happened.

Besides the obvious affinities between their ruling elites, part of the explanation is that with the US renouncing any involvement in Europe's affairs and preoccupied with westward expansion across the North American continent, there was for a century little basis for friction once British rue was gone, apart from the 1840s border dispute, Civil War complications and the brief Venezuela flurry. The two powers shared a distaste for European rivals' imperial designs, Washington wanting to keep Europe "over there" while London prized commercial access to non-European lands, a growing US priority too by mid-century: nor until the 1940s did the US show any inclination to assume the global financial leadership claimed by Britain.

It was ultimately a marriage of convenience, based in the first century on broadly compatible strategic and commercial perspectives, and in the second on waning British capacity to go it alone as others challenged its industrial lead and - unthinkably - its naval supremacy. Once Britain abandoned any fantasies of reconquering its lost North American colonies and US hotheads were talked out seizing Canada, there was little to do but make the best of it.


phillipgoodrich t1_jecdu4t wrote

Please don't underestimate the immense value of a common language (despite G.B. Shaw's famous quotation!) in the hallways of politics and diplomacy. Nuance and idiom are better understood when both parties are speaking their native language. In the U.S., Americans, who are famously and woefully uneducated in any other languages (over 90% of native-born white Americans speak only one language with any fluency), are forced, as were their ancestors, to seek rapport with those who also speak their language. In international diplomacy, there is a perennial distrust of those with whom one cannot smoothly converse. Famously, interpreters in one-on-one conversations will pose a yes-or-no question on behalf of a speaker, to the other individual. And after perhaps a 30-second or more interaction, will turn to the questioner and say, "He says 'yes.'" Well, no, of course he didn't say "yes." He sought clarification, or posed a different response subjected to condensation by the interpreter. Not uncommon.

So, the Americans and their UK cousins, working around accents and idioms, were able to carry on much smoother and understandable deliberations and compromises, than either group could accomplish with any other nations (outside the Commonwealth, who unsurprisingly also remain our closest allies). Once again, famously, the 8000+ mile border between the U.S. and Canada, which has gone unguarded for over two centuries, is unprecedented in world history.


JoJoCa3 t1_je7gqak wrote

I'm pretty interested in history, especially ww2 and asian history. I've watched a bunch of videos but I'm looking for something more like a documentary about the entire topic, instead of loose videos. For example a documentary about the history of Japan or China. Is there any website that has good documentaries like these? I didn't find many on YouTube.


en43rs t1_jeduxlo wrote

If you like Japan the “history of Japan podcast” by Isaac Meyer is great. More than 400 episodes on every topic from religion to culture to war. The first 40 or so are a chronological history of Japan. Then there are great series that deep dives on topics like the Meiji revolution, the bombs, Hirohito, the Sengoku Jidai, democracy in Japan, so on.

It goes from antiquity to the extremely current (like a four episode biography of former prime minister Abe Shinzo)


quantdave t1_je9uc6x wrote

Do you mean a single-episode treatment covering the entire history of each of China, Japan or WW2? That's a big ask, because it would be impossible to do justice to the subject without the thing running to series length. I suppose you might just be able to squeeze an overview of Japan or WW2 into 3-4 hours, but it would have to leave out vast amounts: for China without even Japan's dynastic continuity or reasonably compact geography, it would be a hopeless exercise.

Video can be good at relating individual themes or events, but for the whole story there's really nothing else for it but reading - and even then a single treatment gives you only one version of events and their cause and significance (unless it brings in multiple scholarly viewpoints, which is a good format but adds to the length), so you need a few different takes to begin to form a rounded picture (not all necessarily book-length - journal articles can be valuable for specific events or topics).

Each is really too big to take on in a single bound, so it's far better to tackle individual periods or themes ("events" not so much at first, they're better understood once you've the context). But video has its limitations, and I suspect you're drawing a blank in your search because here you're encountering those limitations.


JoJoCa3 t1_jeaialz wrote

I probably could have phrased that better, with documentary I don't really mean a single episode. A series is perfectly fine for me. I'll read up a bit as well.


quantdave t1_jeak383 wrote

OK, I understand now. I'd really like to see a good series on China or Japan, but sadly I've never encountered any that fit the bill. For WW2 the UK series The World at War (26 hour-long episodes) remains highly regarded, though I still recall the BBC's earlier 6-part Grand Strategy as a good overview. The latter sadly seems forgotten, but a search for the former may be rewarding. ;)


ZXCChort t1_jeayt1t wrote

Why did Napoleon go to Moscow, and not St. Petersburg, which was the capital of Russia at that time?


quantdave t1_jeb2zkx wrote

While St Petersburg may have been the more prestigious prize, Moscow would have been strategically the more valuable city, offering routes to the north, east and south and hopefully less challenging climatic conditions (even if these weren't mild in the event): the northern capital is attractive but strategically something of a dead-end unless your adversary chooses to stake everything on holding it, which couldn't be assumed.


ZXCChort t1_jeckse9 wrote


Just, Napoleon's tactic was to defeat the enemy armies and capture the capital and leaders of the country. He made vassals out of the occupied countries, and did not fight them to the last.


quantdave t1_jecn80b wrote

The Austrian campaign of 1809 may also have convinced him that victory on the battlefield counted for more than a capital: then it took eight more weeks to settle the issue, but Russia's huge distances might drag that out into the winter and beyond. In the event, even Moscow didn't deliver the decisive win, but that couldn't readily be foreseen in the summer.


ZXCChort t1_jecqq3q wrote

I mean that an attack on the capital would force the Russians into battle.


quantdave t1_jecv2td wrote

I don't think it necessarily would, though: the Austrians hadn't fought a last-ditch battle at the city gates, so it couldn't be assumed in Russia either with the assets of its space and its weather, especially given the capital's peripheral location. A calculation that the enemy might leave him to plod around an abandoned palace as his troops froze or starved wouldn't have been unreasonable.


McGillis_is_a_Char t1_jec86zz wrote

I am reading A History of Venice from the 1970s, and it uses the term, "the Orient," all the time. I was wondering, when that term went out of favor for historians?


quantdave t1_jecj5v6 wrote

I think it was already fading then in favour of the more explicitly relative "East" or fixed area names (the earlier eclipse of "Oriental" presumably having a part in it), though Levant (the same word) survives for the eastern Mediterranean region. Norwich may consciously be adopting an old usage in keeping with the local style of the period, though in England it would probably have been more commonly just "the East".


jezreelite t1_jecplw0 wrote

The term really started falling out of favor in academia and general usage after the publication of Orientalism in 1978.

For whatever it's worth, though, my late grandparents were both around the same age as Norwich and they often used "Oriental" in conversation — I guess because old habits die hard.


quantdave t1_jecspe1 wrote

I'd say Said was cleverly associating his target with a term that was already falling into disrepute. Geographical shifts in scholarship may also have contributed, Asia being Asia wherever you are, but "Orient" making little sense if it's to your north, south or west.

My parents were of Norwich's vintage but I don't recall encountering either form in childhood except in "We Three Kings" (which I think left us all initially puzzled) or perhaps in period TV dialogue, and thereafter it was already perceived as old-fashioned, so I think Said was using that to his advantage.


finkistheword t1_jee5ihp wrote

Im from Philippines, and we were taught in school that the Spaniards who colonized us from 1500s to 1800s were the worst. I know a lot of other countries also went through Spanish rule, but how does PH's experience as a colony compare to other Spanish colonies?


Feeling-Asparagus-66 t1_jdpj8hr wrote

Why isn’t Hardcore History in the subreddit’s suggested media podcast section? Unless I just missed it. Just curious.


Doctor_Impossible_ t1_jdpydmf wrote

Because it isn't very good. Carlin has been known to make things up, regularly takes individual instances to represent whole peoples and eras, exaggerates and makes misleading analogies, and when he makes errors (which is too often) he is reluctant to correct them. He became a regular feature over on /r/badhistory for a reason.

Part of the problem is (and it's a fundamental thing), he's not a historian, and says so as a way to shield himself from criticism, rather than use it to explain why he's made mistakes. His fans use the same excuse, and don't take criticism of his work well. Throughout his work he hasn't shown much compunction about improving, either.


Divi_Filius_42 t1_jdrg3qg wrote

It's very much pop history. He's really not an academic and somewhat hides behind it.

A lot of the community are outright hostile about him to be honest. Largely because he likes getting into sweeping conversations about culture. The intro to his series on the Pacific Theater spends probably 20-30 minutes on his thoughts for why Japanese society was so fanatical and he uses some less than polite language to describe it.

Many online history communities tend to shun him because it's the 'internet' thing to do. My experience with the history department at my university was that anyone was happy when pop-history gets flipped into genuine academic interest. So if Carlin and his narrative style gets you curious about things, I'd say keep listening.


jrhooo t1_jdtltcq wrote

Personally, I like his work but you have to see it for what it is. Hes a “fan of history, tslking about history”. He’s basically us. Not an academic source. Just a guy who retells stories he finds interesting and wants to talk about.

I think he does a good job of clarifying “this is my feeling about” vs “this is what the community says is a fact”

But if you are viewing him as citable source, I’d be wary there.

Best believe I’ll continue to subscribe to his stuff, but, for example, I would never cite “well Dan Carlin said it went like this” as a counter in a debate.


GEARHEADGus t1_jdrgcqe wrote

I’m trying to learn more about Social History and looking for some writing guides. Are there any texts about Social History/Writing social history? Thanks!


quantdave t1_jdrz2af wrote

Social history (like history in general) covers a wide range of themes and approaches, and there isn't a uniform style: it can be a dry analytical treatment or a bodice-ripping account of the racier side of life; it can cover anything from the development of working-class identity and organisation or the situation of women in the family and economic or public life to the evolution of elite taste & etiquette, the latter mercifully not so much in favour nowadays.

So it would help if you could be a bit more specific about the kind of topic or framework you have in mind: each brings its own challenges and likely readership. And do you mean the actual writing, or rather the appropriate research techniques and sources?


GEARHEADGus t1_jds3hjo wrote

Im aiming for the sweet spot between academic and popular. I’ve got several things going at the moment. Prohibition, policing, labor, and some womens things at the local level. All meant to tie into each other eventually.

As for your last question: both, actually. Writing and research


quantdave t1_jdsh4pb wrote

OK, that narrows it down a bit - maybe too much, because I can't find anything that really fits the bill: what's out there tends to be too general, too academic or coming at it from a more ideological or sectional standpoint - which is fine, it's just probably not what you're looking for.

What you do have is the luxury of being able to pick from both academic and popular treatments to suit your purpose. I'd start by familiarising yourself with existing relevant works, evaluating each kind for the elements you're looking for even if you don't find the style there that you want: the "tricks of the trade" are there on the page, it's just a matter of selecting those that work best.

In terms of material, for the popular side you can draw largely on those secondary works, but for the more scholarly angle you'd want to delve into the archives - and maybe census returns for the labour environment and women's participation, while for Prohibition I wouldn't overlook contemporary newspapers which can often provide valuable period detail. Recorded eyewitness testimony can add further flavour: the 1920s may be too early to feature in any but the earliest oral history collections but may be recounted in intervening documentaries (for which unused material may also occasionally survive).

Sorry I drew a blank: I hope there's the odd useful idea there. Perhaps when you're finished you can write the guide too - there seems to be a gap in the market.


camillaakenobi t1_jdwgawx wrote

Why Germany did not lose, technically, the First World War?


quantdave t1_jdwvequ wrote

It gave a very good impression of having done just that: its army was in retreat, the would-be architect of victory Ludendorff had cracked up and run off, its allies were falling in rapid succession (by the last week there weren't any left) and the civilian population was at the end of its tether.

Militarists and nationalists subsequently boasted that the army remained in being, that Germany had not been invaded, and that it had signed an armistice rather than a surrender, and therefore that it wasn't a defeat - the corollary being that in dictating disadvantageous peace terms the allies had somehow abused German magnanimity in calling it a day.

But in reality, by late 1918 the Reich's options were few and unappetising: the big push in the west hadn't achieved the promised victory, and Allied commanders had at last worked out how to overcome the formidable German defences after four years of trial & error, while the US would become an ever more powerful factor in Allied strength.

Germany might have fought on into 1919, but for what? It had lost, and the subsequent treaty was about as just as anything that was likely to emerge from the carnage. The "let's call it a technical draw" take was understandable as a desperate spin by negotiators seeking easier peace terms, but bore little resemblance to reality.


phillipgoodrich t1_jecla92 wrote

Rather echoes the U.S. response at the close of Vietnam, which the U.S. clearly lost.


quantdave t1_jecp64a wrote

... or Britain's various colonial withdrawals, portrayed as a generous granting of independence that had of course been intended all along. In Germany it became bound up with sinister ultranationalist tropes and militaristic nostalgia for supposed wartime solidarity: at least few Vietnam vets wanted a re-run, even if political figures envisaged a global comeback.


Doctor_Impossible_ t1_jdx0xi6 wrote

The claim was (and still is, by some people) that German was never militarily beaten, it was betrayed by its own politicians (and Jews and socialists, who conspired to ensure the country was defeated). The Dolchstosslegende is a pernicious lie, used and spread by the Nazis in particular.


calijnaar t1_jdwracm wrote

Germany most definitely lost the first world war. And what do you mean by "technically" not losing a war?


Thibaudborny t1_je4ne8v wrote

Germany lost in every sense, even technically - as said, it's just a lie spread by those who couldn't accept defeat and sought an excuse.


Alarmed_Orchid_2744 t1_jdyw84q wrote

When Japan invaded the Philippines, The Philippines was a US Colony, with its own commonwealth government. Upon Japanese Occupation however, the Commonwealth Government of the Philippines still operates albeit in exile on US shores. Afterwards, the US and the allied forces helped take back the Philippines from Japan, occupying it for another year before granting full independence to the country for good. So would it be correct to assume that the Philippines was under both the Japanese and America at the same time?? (even if the Americans weren't actively governing the Philippines during the Japanese occupation)


en43rs t1_jdzso5b wrote

>was under both the Japanese and America at the same time??

Kinda? Although that's semantic, because that can be said for all occupied territory (by that logic Poland was under both German and Polish government in exile control).


quantdave t1_jdzsvcj wrote

A government in exile doesn't really count as control, though, so I'd say from 1942 to 1944/45 the islands were "under" Japan, the US and the Commonwealth government retaining their claim but not yet able to enforce it. For a few months during the Japanese invasion and the subsequent US recapture, parts were Japanese-controlled and parts US-controlled, but in between the US was out of the picture in terms of de facto possession.


kagabkdisg t1_jdzw6ie wrote

What are some of the coolest historical war/culture books you’ve read?


getBusyChild t1_je2b8nc wrote

Mafia history question.

Has there ever been a time when the Italian and Irish mob have been aligned or done favors for the other? Like, I don't know, the Irish mob performed a hit for the Italians or something similar?


MeatballDom t1_je2uzs6 wrote

All the major gang syndicates are connected, especially when it comes to international borders, as they can help each other smuggle things in and out. So drugs are one of the major places that you see cooperation between the Irish and Italians still in Europe today. The more they can sell, the more money they make, so everyone's happy to help each other out.

In America, the Irish and Italian originated American gangs were often at ends with each other for control of territory, but since these groups were rarely united themselves they could easily convince one of the families to help them take out a rival so both sides benefited.


7055 t1_je3ka7d wrote

Can anyone explain why the Iranian regime is so against monarchies?

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who was the leader of the 1979 Iranian Revolution, called monarchies a “sinister” and “evil” form of government. “Islam proclaims monarchy and hereditary succession wrong and invalid,” he said in 1970.

Can anybody explain what it is about monarchies that the Iranian regime is so opposed to? I find this confusing because it seems to me that the present-day Iranian theocracy is very similar to a monarchy itself. A monarchy is ruled by some type of supreme ruler, and the Iranian theocracy is also ruled by a supreme leader. So what is the difference between the two that the Iranian regime so vehemently opposes?


Doctor_Impossible_ t1_je46b50 wrote

>Can anybody explain what it is about monarchies that the Iranian regime is so opposed to?

Perhaps if the monarchy hadn't been, or hadn't been seen as, the puppet of foreign interests, Iranians wouldn't have had such a dislike for it. I'm not sure that the type of government Iran had mattered so much as how it operated. An autocratic government is one thing, but subjecting people to that, political/religious repression, inflation, corruption, and violence made revolution inevitable. If the government had ostensibly been a democracy, the result would have been the same, and the succeeding rulers would have denounced democracy in a similar fashion.

>I find this confusing because it seems to me that the present-day Iranian theocracy is very similar to a monarchy itself.

Superficially, yes, and you can argue that perhaps the theocracy is merely a means to an end for some who seek power, but I don't think it's possible to claim that the systems are the same because you have observed one similarity. In a monarchy a ruler can, within some unofficial limitations, make whatever decisions they wish and are not accountable to a higher authority, nor do their decisions have to come from, or be in line with, precedent. In a theocracy, religion informs the rule of the state, and there are conventions, lines of reasoning, and established precedent for virtually all decisions that do not equate to "Because I say so." from a supreme ruler. Whether it is done sincerely, or as an excuse, is another matter.


quantdave t1_jea5hix wrote

>Perhaps if the monarchy hadn't been, or hadn't been seen as, the puppet of foreign interests, Iranians wouldn't have had such a dislike for it.

That was a big trigger in 1979, but over the longer term there had also been an erosion of perceived domestic legitimacy of successive dynasties from the 18th century onward: the last dynasty's origin in a fairly modern-looking military coup (allegedly with British involvement) didn't endear it to legitimist detractors, though as ever the clergy varied in its engagement with the throne.

Religious traditionalists were also alienated by the Pahlavi rulers' sporadic modernisation efforts: it's too readily forgotten that Khomeini's final breach with the throne came not over its pro-western leanings or autocratic rule but over the 1963 land reform which he saw as eroding the proper rural hierarchy. The revolution's mix of popular and traditionalist aspirations underlies much of its subsequent evolution and the idiosyncrasies we may find perplexing.


TheGreatOneSea t1_je40r9u wrote

The impression I've gotten from the past few decades is that a big chunk of the Iranian people hate being a theocracy (or being close to one,) as well, so there probably isn't much of an actual difference in perception.


quantdave t1_je4t3w2 wrote

The author and the date are both significant: Khomeini went far further than most of the religious leadership in his opposition to the Shah's personal rule, and here he's simultaneously proclaiming the illegitimacy of the then regime and the need for clerical leadership of a new state. It's really the moment when the outlines of the post-1979 order are first laid out.

But it wasn't always always thus: the clergy had held the Safavid dynasty in high regard (reciprocating its promotion of clerical authority), and even after viewing its successors as usurpers, senior religious figures made their peace with the Shah after the 1953 coup before their falling-out in the 1960s gave the already outspoken Khomeini his opportunity to claim spiritual leadership of the opposition movement.

Nor was Khomeini's authoritarian clericalist take characteristic of past anti-regime religious sentiment, senior religious figures often siding from the 1890s with popular protest movements (to some extent foreshadowing 1979) and being associated with the 1906-11 constitutionalist movement and (at least for a time) the parliamentary cause in the early 1950s. The republic's eventual form was in part a historical accident, Khomeini emerging just as an earlier generation of leaders was passing from the scene.


russinmichigan1 t1_jeg9vvv wrote

I have always been interested in mountain men. I’m sure Russia has some famous trappers like Jim Bridger or Hugh Glass were in America. Does anyone know of some and books about them?


jezreelite t1_jegd6y3 wrote

Yermak Timofeyevich was a Cossack fur-trapper and explorer who started the conquest of Siberia.

The wealthy Stroganov family helped finance the conquest of Siberia and made much of their fortune through fur trading.


LorencoGP t1_jdmpynn wrote

What does it take for a group of 1 million people to declare independece of X country and have their own government?


phillipgoodrich t1_jdnq3vv wrote

Powerful and well-respected leadership, while the X country is having a lot of political dissent and divisive issues other than with the rebels, that distract the populace.


quantdave t1_jdq16kh wrote

If the project's to thrive, most important is a strong sense of distinct shared identity and a competent political leadership capable of uniting the country and winning international recognition. Anyone can declare independence and set up a government: that's the easy part; making it last is another matter, and the conditions for success and for effective statehood can't be conjured out of nothing.


Eminence_grizzly t1_jdq4bn5 wrote

For starters, they would need their current government to agree with that plan.

Or they would have to declare independence while their government is actively engaging in genocidal policies against them.
In that case, this fact needs to be widely recognized. They might even receive international help for their struggle.

Another option is declaring independence when the previous country is already falling apart.

In any case, for a successful declaration of independence, the group seeking independence would need to be a distinct ethnic, religious, or linguistic community that lives in a specific region and is a majority in that region.


Mysterious_Gas4500 t1_jdtzuvf wrote

I need help remembering the name of some American governemnt agent who studied a Native American tribe during the 1800s

I was talking with a friend about Native American history, and I
remembered there was a guy in the 1800s, I'm pretty sure an agent of the
Bureau of Indian Affairs, who was sent out to study a Native American
tribe in Oklahoma (definitely somewhere in the Great Plains). He ended
up fully integrating himself with the tribe though, to such an extent
that he became a warchief, and helped lead a raid on another Native
tribe, which seriously pissed off the Bureau of Indian Affairs as I
think they also had an agent studying that tribe? He ended up having to
go back to the East Coast, but briefly came back to try and help them
fight back against the government breaking up their land for use in
private agriculture (in court of course, not literally fight).

If anyone could help me find this guy's name, that'd be greatly appreciated.


Ranger176 t1_jdwzgqh wrote

You might be thinking of Frank Cushing who lived among the Zuni tribe in New Mexico.


harryc621 t1_je2qd32 wrote

What is the most under-the-radar/obscure titbit of information you know about The East India Company?


Watercra t1_je3cy3v wrote

What would be some good books about the Congress of Vienna? With the roles/POV of Metternich, Talleyrand, etc.


quantdave t1_je5qk8h wrote

A related question popped up here, and I was surprised not to find more recent works, so I hope someone can add other suggestions.

Besides the Jarrett title mentioned there, Harold Nicolson's The Congress of Vienna relates the contributions of the various principals, but after 77 years that's getting pretty long in the tooth.

For the perspectives of individual players it might be worth consulting biographies: there's a recent sympathetic reappraisal of Metternich by Wolfram Siemann, but sceptics might be left unconvinced that he was the visionary suggested.


Watercra t1_je660qu wrote

I remember listening to a podcast that had a really great book in their reading recommendations, but it's only in German and not translated - at least not when I checked last


quantdave t1_je67v7k wrote

A translation might come along - it may be worth asking the publisher if one's planned.


Watercra t1_je69rju wrote

I actually found it and it's been translated now - I couldn't find it at first because I forgot it wasn't just about the Congress, it's a book of around 1000 pages on Metternich, and ofc includes what happened at the Congress.


quantdave t1_je6vxw7 wrote

Excellent, that was timely! It's not Siemann, is it? That came out in the original German a few years earlier.

In Our Time did an episode back in 2017: the associated reading list fills in a few gaps, closer to what I expected:

Mark Jarrett, The Congress of Vienna and Its Legacy: War and Great Power Diplomacy After Napoleon (I.B. Tauris 2014)

David King, Vienna 1814: How the Conquerors of Napoleon Made Love, War, and Peace at the Congress of Vienna (Broadway Books 1993)

Henry Kissinger, A World Restored: Metternich, Castlereagh and the Problems of Peace, 1812-22 (first published 1954; Echo Point Books & Media 2013)

Harold Nicolson, The Congress of Vienna: A Study in Allied Unity 1812-1822 (1946; Grove Press 2000)

Paul W. Schroeder, The Transformation of European Politics: 1763-1848 (Clarendon Press 1996)

Brian E. Vick, The Congress of Vienna: Power and Politics after Napoleon (Harvard University Press 2014)

Adam Zamoyski, Rites of Peace: The Fall of Napoleon and the Congress of Vienna (Harper Perennial 2008)


Watercra t1_je6x3mw wrote

Yup this is exactly it, I just totally blanked out on the show name so I couldn't find the reading list and such 😅 And it is the Siemann book indeed


LanEvo7685 t1_jeawvsj wrote

Hi I have been wanting to piece together the historical background of a WW2 story in my family's history and I don't know where to ask, especially since this is a serious sub so I am hesitant to start a thread.

I am from Hong Kong and this happened in either HK or in Guangdong before my dad/grandparents came to HK. All I've heard is this: During WW2 my grandfather was captured by the Japanese and he escaped and crossed the river in his escape by hiding underwater breathing through reeds.

I don't have a lot of connection to family, but this story fascinated me and I'd like to learn more about the specific background. I don't think my grandfather was a soldier/resistance fighter but I have read that Japanese would capture random civilians people either for torture or kill/ for forced labor / or to be sold as slaves.


quantdave t1_jed21hi wrote

Civilians from both Guangdong and Hong Kong were dragooned as forced labour for Hainan's mines and associated railway & port construction. Some such intended fate seems the likeliest candidate, unless he was suspected of political association with the republic's cause or with the British colonial authorities. It was certainly a lucky escape, conditions for the Hainan workers having been exceptionally harsh and treatment of suspected enemies harsher still.


LanEvo7685 t1_jeeu3cq wrote

Is there a phrase or term for this that can help me Google and learn more?


quantdave t1_jef3wcx wrote

Just some combination like Japan Guangdong forced labour Hainan should turn up a few pointers. I don't know if forced labour was much used within Guangdong or if local people were deported to Japan like some in the north: that might be another topic to look for, but I haven't seen any mentions.


metallurgyhelp t1_jedbal6 wrote

Before the Meiji era, would it be allowed for a well-off farmer's daughter to marry the son of either a retainer of the Tokugawa shogunate or a magistrate of the rice storehouse? Or would the caste system make it not possible?

Apparently, only those within the same caste can marry or something. Retainer = samurai family.


TameichiHara t1_jedtax5 wrote

Some time ago i encountered interesting facts about akizuki-class destroyers particiularly their main armament they were equipped with 100mm type 98 Universal cannons instead of type97 127mm aa cannons and according to the notes these cannos were very good so why Japanese didin’t equip other destroyers with them?


Doctor_Impossible_ t1_jef2pu8 wrote

Do you mean the 127mm Type 89? The 100mm Type 98 was a newer design, the Type 89 was used from 1932 onwards, and ships had already had older mountings refitted with Type 89s. The Type 98 was designed in 1938 and didn't enter service until 1941 or 1942.


zenivinez t1_jeg5e2o wrote

Was Napoleons intent after the french revolution to abolish all the monarchies of Europe and Asia? It sort of feels as though Napoleon was vilified by the Royal families revising history after his defeat. But I don't know history well enough to know what Napolean's true intentions were.


en43rs t1_jeg7vxa wrote

No. Napoleon was not a revolutionary no compromise republican that would only be satisfied by the destruction of all thrones. His actions are proof of that: he declared himself emperor (meaning the most important monarchical ruler in Europe, above kings in status), he made France into a hereditary monarchy again, he created his own nobility and invited back the old French nobility that went into exile during the Revolution.

So no, he wasn't against monarchy. He wanted France to be a monarchy among other monarchies in Europe... but then, why:

>It sort of feels as though Napoleon was vilified by the Royal families revising history after his defeat.

Because while he wanted to make France into a monarchy again, he wanted to realize the dream of a lot of French monarchs before him: make France the sole superpower in Europe.

That's why he created new kingdoms (Italy, Holland) and usurped old kingdoms (Spain, Naples) and put his brothers and brothers in law on those throne: because his family should rule the largest part of Europe possible.

He also conquered a lot of territories. That's France around 1799 (when Napoleon takes power in a coup). That's France a decade later. He annexed the whole of the Benelux, western Germany, Rome, Northern Italy... and usurped a lot of kingdoms around him.

That's why he was hated. Not because he was going to hang all the monarchs... but because he wanted to take their lands and title away. And put all of Europe under France direct or indirect control.


zenivinez t1_jeges2y wrote

Thanks! You can never tell without really knowing it whether the history you see is revisionist history.


OliveSubatomic t1_jegio0v wrote

What did the average person do during events like the Spanish Inquisition or Hitler's Nazi Germany? Was there any specific historical event that caused people to either support/ignore the atrocities? Did those being persecuted have any idea of what was coming, or even how to save themselves before or during these times?