I have read that Freud generally held that “analysis stops at the nursery door” - is that he did not like to use his own family as subjects. Still, I can imagine that being Dr. Freud’s father and reading his work about the Oedipal impulse could be a bit unsettling. Do we have any record of their thoughts?

Hello Historians,

My ancestors lived in Baden, specifically Kirchzarten, around 1820-1835.

I have found it very difficult to find history books, articles or other resources specific to that area in Germany and that time period.

I was hoping that one of you Reddit historians would be able to point me toward some useful reading. Any help is much appreciated!

I was watching the Rose Rent episode of Cadfael, in the episode a lady's husband dies and guys are trying to make the moves on her, fairly soon after the funeral. Am I correct in assuming that the mourning period would have been similar to Victorian times? And it would have been unseemly for a widow to remarry so quickly?

Did Hitler really have one ball and why was it said to be stored in the Albert Hall?

Hi all. I’m looking to getting into reading more primary sources, specifically about ancient Rome. Of course, I know some basics that would be rattled off on a simple google; The works of Livy, Plutarch, and Pliny...etc. I’m also searching for suggestions on figures who may not have been exclusively historians, similar to Julius Caesar’s account of the Gallic war or Meditations by Marcus Aurelius. Bonus points if it’s sometime during the early principate to Commodus’s rule. Thanks to anyone who took the time to read, and thanks more so to those who take the time to answer

What did most of the major European empires think would or would want to happen to their far flung empires before the world wars? To my knowledge, many realized that the empires could not be maintained indefinitely, at least as they were around ~1910.

(I would also be interested in what Japan thought/wanted to happen to their empire as well if possible)

I heard from a youtube lecture that in why nations fail the author outlines the differences between spanish and english colonialism. What were the major differences and how did they manifest in a recognizably different effect post colonialism if at all?

After he became Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, he had already been President. The Branches are theoretically co-equal. Presidents are often referred to as President even after leaving office for formal purposes.

Suppose I was introducing him at a dinner in 1925, is it "Mr President Chief Justice Taft", or "Mr Chief Justice President Taft"?

Did CJ take precedence because he held that office in 1925? What about in the month prior to his death after he resigned from the court? Did newspaper announcements call him CJ, P, or P, CJ?

It seems that after a certain point all of Europe's noble families were plagued by various health issues and mental degradations brought on by inbreeding. Did people just not realise that inbreeding is bad for you, did the nobility think they were somehow exempt, or did they just not care?

There is a pretty good chance Mozart and Beethoven were black. Is there a chance Bach was also whitewashed like those two? I also found out Mendeleev was Turkish which is pretty cool too.

I know that in the years following WW2, West Germany used turkish guest workers to help rebuilding, as there was a lack of workers due to war casualties. How did the USSR deal with this problem, having suffered even larger civilian casualties, and having to rebuild while at the same time having to rebuild in the Satellite States as well?

I'm putting together a list of 10-15 books for a graduate level independent study on 20th century US diplomacy. I've already got Gaddis and Williams so what other books would y'all recommend? I'm hoping to find books on less known/talked about events (i.e. not WWI or WW2).

It’s my understanding that Ethiopia was the only place in Africa not to be colonized by a European country.

Is this true and if so, how did they avoid it when no one else on the continent did?

Or volcanoes or other natural features. I know everyone asks about the Greeks and Olympus, but did any of the Romans literally try to go to Hades?

I was reading Blackstone's Commentaries, and I was curious about his narrative about the adoption of Roman Law. Now, I know that nowadays much he wrote about the origins of Common Law isn't accurate, but what he wrote about the Roman Law (lawyers and jurists in Italy discovering those texts) I already read something similar in other sources.

​

My question is, how those statutes in Corpus Juris Civilis started to be seen as binding? Was by the decision of the soreveigns of Mediaeval Europe, something like a contractual law (in contracts of merchants) or a belief that, since the Roman/Byzantine Empire dominated Italy and much of Europe, those laws were still valld and binding, or other way?

I was wondering, is there any record of ancient Celtic "barbarians" using specifically siege weaponry like catapults/ ballistae in ancient times... or advanced engineering?

it just seems... i mean.. the physical brain of a human being from Rome/Greece and a human being from any Celtic/barbarian tribe is the same. .. so the chances of having a human being born with the mind of an engineer/inventor must be the same right?

so why no barbarian engineering? I kind of understand that they might not have been able to design and build things liek advanced engineering/catapults/ ballistae/scorpions/Onsager independently, as they didn't have the mathematical knowledge to do so....

but again.. why? why didn't those human beings who had the same brain figure out mathematics themselves?

and even ignoring that, i find it hard to fathom that not one single barbarian guy saw a catapult being used and understood the principles of how it worked? that just seems.. really really unlikely, they weren't stupid, they weren't like. knuckle dragging cavemen, so i dont understand.

i suppose the same question goes for things like structural architecture?

was it a case of they simply didnt need to? or didnt want to? or?

This question may encompass many historical periods (since medieval times to the 19th century), since I'm asking what would generally happen in such a situation.

Let's assume a monarch refuses to pay.

How would the banks react and respond to this? What consequences would there be? How would his subjects, nobles and allies react?

Feel free to answer about your own period of specialty; I'm interested in all of them.

I have picked up this vague notion that more or less since the formation of nation states, the UK has tried to prevent any large continental european alliances, in order to insure its own interests and influence on the Continent but I wonder if there is any data to support this hypothesis. My grasp of history is not strong enough to really judge motivations of any historical players in key events from napoleon's time till the present, so I wonder if there are any documents of strategy etc. That would indicate that the UK has ever acted in that way or if its just a cynical view of the UK role in Europe.

Events like the UK joining the EEC, and UK policy within the EU, such as its support of the eastward expansion might be explained by such a motive ( dilute the influence of Germany and France, make agreement and agenda setting more difficult etc.) but then again not necessarily so.

While I think its likely that to some extent UK policy has been divide and conquer'esque I just don't feel comfortable to hold such a view on a few half remembered facts and an episode of 'yes minister' or two....

Thanks for any data/viewpoints for or against this hypothesis

So, I'm currently putting together a lesson about the Aztecs for high schoolers, but there's some gaps about the economic situation of the empire that the books I'm using don't address. The claim that I've often seen repeated is that the Aztec farmer had to give away what he did not consume himself to the ruler/state. This prompts the following questions (if it is true):

1. what did the ruler/state do with these resources? Distribute them to the nobles? Supply armies? Save for times of famine?

2. what did commoners who didn't farm but were craftsmen give?

3. How did this interact with markets? We know the market at Tlatelolco was very busy with all kinds of products, including farmers selling their produce. Was a certain amount of the produce that the farmers could keep meant to be traded away?