From my understanding, inherited titles such as Dukes, Marquees, Earls, Viscounts, Barons, (Baronets?), along with owning swathes of land (landed gentry?) and a palatial house would be the prerequisites of traditionally being the aristocracy in the British terms.
If I were the second son, or daughter, of a Duke and so not to inherit the family titles or the estate, would I be considered part of the aristocracy? If I were, would my children be part of the aristocracy? And what about their children? Was there a distinct line drawn when someone would not be considered part of the aristocracy?
1 Answers 2020-10-13
Inspired by this: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/ja4ye2/ancient_egypt_was_clearly_a_highly_advanced/ (actually one of the removed top level comments)
I could probably speculate and say something wrong here in order to encourage Cunningham's Law to take effect, so pretend I did.
I'm just genuinely curious about the context of when and why each one was used, and I realized that I had some pretty strong assumptions that I don't have any specific citation for. I'm especially curious about edge cases or exceptions, but I think that's human nature.
1 Answers 2020-10-13
Forgive me if this is out of place, but I searched the Wiki and haven't found the type of book I'm looking for.
I've read several books on the WWII Naval War in the Pacific, including books on Midway, Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors, a book on Guadalcanal, but they've all been specific. I'm looking for an overall book which might not go into as much detail about specific events, but goes over the entirety of the Pacific theater of operations, including the naval battles as well as the Marine island-hopping operations, the Army in the Philippines, and everything else.
Any recommendations would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
5 Answers 2020-10-13
Have we found any of the originals? Did we reforge pieces that were lost? Do we even know what was lost or can we estimate how much it would have been worth?
1 Answers 2020-10-13
1 Answers 2020-10-13
Why were cataphracts not as common as horse archers?
Were there mercenary cataphracts?
What resources can I use to learn more about cataphracts?
Were cataphracts always members of the royalty or nobility?
Has a woman or group of women fought in this role?
Were cataphracts shock cavalry, heavy cavalry, or heavy shock cavalry?
To what extent did the breed(s) of local horses effect the cataphracts of specific peoples/regions?
Did philosophers have moral problems with horses receiving better armor than common soldiers?
If two groups of cataphracts clashed, what factors would decide who won?
Were cataphracts more likely to be captured and ransomed than killed?
Did cataphracts dismount to fight, generally, in sieges, or in battles where terrain prevented effective use of horses?
Considering expense and availability, how many suits of armor, horses, and sets of weaponry would a single cataphract have?
1 Answers 2020-10-13
I was reading "The Black Jacobins" by C.L.R. James and came across this sentence describing the attitudes of planters towards their slaves in pre-revolution Haiti.
Except for the Jews, who spared no energy in making Israelites of their slaves, the majority of the colonists religiously kept all instruction, religious or otherwise, away from the slaves.
This is the first time it's ever occurred to me that there were any non-Christian slaveholders at all. So who were these early Jewish slavemasters? What was their system of religious education towards their slaves actually like? How did they get along with the other gentile slaveowners in colonial society?
Also, this question touches on some contentious topics, so pretty please do not use this questions as an excuse to be anti semitic.
1 Answers 2020-10-13
I know of the many great vowel shifts of the English language, but what about the French language?
If I spoke French, could I go back in time and hold a conversation with Louis XIV?
1 Answers 2020-10-13
1 Answers 2020-10-13
1 Answers 2020-10-13
I hope this is clear — essentially I'd like to know if similar concepts, discourse and sentiments today around U.S. American / broadly Western imperialism existed in the Roman Empire. Particularly given today is Indigenous People's Day in the U.S. and perhaps elsewhere, I'm looking for historical parallels.
I'd love to learn about what the native people of the Iberian Peninsula or Syria or the British Isles thought of their Roman rulers, and what native Romans knew and thought about their empire and its conquests.
It's a question that I imagine has a complex answer. Thanks for y'all's help.
1 Answers 2020-10-13
I am writing for NanoWrimo (self isolating continues!) this year and was going to throw in it some Junkers and other minor nobles.
While the time period I am planning on diverging the noble lines from is from far enough back that I do not think making up nobles would be a problem, I was still wanting to make sure that I do not offend anyone by chance and do something like make up a name and it be an actual person with a still living line that is mostly avoiding media coverage and make them angry. Like the Hapsburgs; can't use any direct Hapsburgs unless moderately accurate because they are still a family with far more political and financial pull than I want to accidently tread on. I mean, I don't think the Prussian/Junker and associated nobles' trait I was going exploit is that bad; my story plan is to have the highest ranking present Noble of an alien-knapped village and totally not invading 'we got lost, honest' Prussian army regiment declare that this now free colony on an alien planet is a new duchy of the Kingdom of Prussia, of which they were now the duke of because there is no law that says they couldn't declare a new duchy on an alien planet. I was hoping someone might know a good couple of books or web pages that have information of lines that went extinct since those are safe. Or is making up a name and google searching to see if someone pops up the better way to do it?
The other thing I wanted to double check on is this; in this time frame the Czech republic and Slovakia were apart of the Austrian Empire as bohemia and northern Hungary(?). Were the German populations in this area the "Austrians" and would have had the more favorable treatment? Or were there local Czech, Slavic, or Hungarian nobles and upper class that would have been considered higher social standing? or would the Hungarian revolution of 1848 flipped how things would have been prior to that? Are there any good, concise books or articles available that would have more details?
1 Answers 2020-10-13
I'm under the impression that Egypt occupied the same Mediterranean cultural space as did the Romans and the Greeks. I'm moreover under the impression that in antiquity, Egypt was a fabulously wealthy region. And it's clear from their architecture that Ancient Egypt must have been a highly developed civilization.
So why is it that whenever we talk about the roots of "Western Civilization," we almost always go no further back chronologically than talking about the Ancient Greeks? Why does it feel as though the Ancient Egyptians are so culturally discontinuous from the present day?
4 Answers 2020-10-13
For example; when the bow and arrow first showed up in war, how long before it was being used by all armies?
1 Answers 2020-10-13
Would men playing these roles be seen as a lower class of actor and/or mocked or ridiculed? Or was it considered perfectly fine and respectable?
1 Answers 2020-10-13
1 Answers 2020-10-13
When did ancient Greek paganism finally die out?
1 Answers 2020-10-13
1 Answers 2020-10-13
I am looking into my ancestry and culture because my family has severely whitewashed our lives, not keeping anything of my culture but the white parts. ANYWAYS.
I have been doing a little geneology and looking into my ancestry, especially my Native American side. I have found the group of indigenous peoples I come from but I read that the Chichimecas culture and language has basically died out and is no longer in practice and that there isn't much known about them. I am wondering if someone knows anything about the Chichimecas or knows resources I can look into?
1 Answers 2020-10-12
Referring to of course the Dakotas, Wyoming, Idaho, etc. I guess the obvious answer would be that maybe they wouldn't want to group them together because the territories being too big. But given how controversial the large relative representative power per person of these states is today, you'd think there would have been at least as much of a controversy during the 1800s when statehood was at issue, especially given how they'd dilute the power of the then-existing states.
But when I read about, for example, why there's two Dakotas, it seems like the Dakotans just didn't like each other and there was little thought given to the issue of how powerful these two new states would be. Is it so simple as they just didn't think about it? Or was there some other incentive to shift power to these states?
Edit: Just want to specify that some prior questions deal with the question of why these states exist, but I don't see any that deal specifically with whether there was any controversy of how they would shift the power balance and that's mainly what I'm asking about.
1 Answers 2020-10-12
Edit: Please pardon the typo in the title.
1 Answers 2020-10-12
I’m writing an essay on how the English crown has benefited from colonialism, the Empire and the Atlantic slave trade (Was Modern Britain built on the trans Atlantic slave trade and colonialism). I studied Elizabeth I for 2 years at GCSE but not much on before that and how the English navy developed. Is it a valid argument that Elizabeth won the against the armada indirectly because of privateering. Since the navy wasn’t as developed before but did advance financially and technologically because of privateering and the proceeds gained from it by looting spanish ships coming from the new world. Could it be said that she was the first English monarch to benefit from colonisation (the new world) indirectly since none of the colonies attempted by the English actually thrived in her time?
1 Answers 2020-10-12
I just listened to a fantastic episode of the Kerning Cultures podcast titled "Jerusalem Calling," about the cultural role of the multi-language Palestine Broadcasting Service in the twelve years before the Nakba. I would love to read more about technology's role in the relations between Arabs and Jews in Mandatory Palestine and the early state of Israel. Are there any particularly good books that I might be interested in? Thanks!
1 Answers 2020-10-12
First, I am in no way questioning the Holocaust I seek only understanding of the method
They would have to plan and build the camps themselves and the needed infrastructure. That in itself must have used a lot of resources and time.
Then they needed logistics to transport millions of people from countries far away and countries nearby to the camps.
That is a lot of work and engineering as well
It would have been easier, less resource-intensive, to kill the victims right away. They would have saved time, money, resources. I am sure the Germans had the need to move troops, munitions, food, etc around so spare capacity on the rail network was hard to come by
I was studying the 6.000.000 number recently and came upon an article from the Haaretz. (I am unsure if Haaretz can count as a primary source.),
The article says in part:
Eichmann … told me that, according to his information, some 6,000,000 Jews had perished until then -- 4,000,000 in extermination camps and the remaining 2,000,000 through shooting by the Operations Units and other causes, such as disease, etc.”
It says 1/3 of the Jewish victims of the Holocaust were shot "in place". Wel diseases etc. I dont know what percentage of 2 million were shot comapred to the disease and whatnot that Eichmann refers to.
Did they build the concentration camps and death camps out of pure evil? They wanted the victims to suffer as much as possible before they were killed?
Did they build them to hide the evidence? Then from who and why?
Did they build them for efficiency? (This is what I always assumed but I dont think it makes actual sense).
I know that in at least some camps the conducted vile and sadistic experiments at least some of which the administration thought would help them in the war effort in various ways. Moving people in, provided a steady stream of test subjects.
I have never found source material that points towards the Nazis using a significant portion of the death camp inmates for medical experiments.
It also provided workers for the production goods or infrastucture.
I know Slavic "slaves" were used by the Nazi regime in Norway to build railways. I have not read that they were first transported to a concentration camp and then deployed to Norway.
I do know that Germans did do things to the inmates for no other reason than to torture them. That then points to the theory that they did all of this engineering in order to maximize suffering ?
2 Answers 2020-10-12