From my understanding they were either an intelligence or an operations officer, is this correct? I read that in a battalion they were an operations officer, would this role also apply to the regiment level ? I also assume they would be located at the regimental headquarters?

I know this is a broad topic, and it will vary from language to language, but with written texts from places like Rome, or middle kingdom Egypt, or ancient china, are we simply doing our best to decipher things? Or are we at a point where we have a good understanding of the workings of the language. Would you be able to write a letter in those languages to a contemporary of the time?

In addition do texts from the time of say, Constantine the first become easier to understand than those of Cincinnatus?

I thought this was weird. The way history goes it’s almost as if Europeans and Africans met for the first time during the age of exploration and colonization, but there were interactions between Rome and North Africa during the Roman period. Greece knew of places beyond Egypt and had 2 other categories for them, one for North Africa and another for everywhere else.

Black Romans were definitely around. What happened to the population after Rome fell? Did they simply dissolve into Europe’s gene pool, did they flee to another continent?

Black comes in many shades, like white. Was it just Europeans interacting with a different “Type” of black than they did 1,000 years later? Same way the British and Germans are distinguishable?

Could the Renaissance period have also skewed Europe’s perception of the ancient world? I’d guess it’s understandable having made all subjects including Jesus in Renaissance art white if they weren’t aware of the racial makeup of civilization 2,000 years ago, or didn’t see a point in it. Most of Egypt in Renaissance art before Greek and Roman conquests is depicted white, instead of Arab or black or whatever else it could’ve been.

"Bootleggers and Baptists" is a theory purporting to explain the political support for prohibitions on things like alcohol, drugs, prostitution, and gambling. It proposes that there is an implicit coalition of "Baptists" (concerned citizens) and "Bootleggers" (criminals who stand to benefit by illegally providing the banned goods or services).

It's easy to see that the "Baptists" have actively petitioned the government for bans on these activities. They have had many supporters, and they have often been successful My question is whether there evidence that "Bootleggers" have influenced the government to make or keep these activities illegal. Why would politicians listen to the tiny minority of people who stand to benefit financially by making these activities illegal? Are there instances of criminals using methods like bribery or threats to convince politicians to ban these things?

​

Edit: I am specifically asking about lobbying by criminals who cannot be seen to openly influence politicians. I know that other small groups, like professional associations, can influence politicians.

I've always heard that the pre-Christian Germanic peoples (including Scandinavians) were preliterate societies but why is this the case when they obviously made runic inscriptions; did these serve a solely ceremonial purpose as opposed to record-keeping, literature, etc.?

Adolf Hitler's theatrical rhetorical style has often been pointed to as a reason why he so captivated voters and observers. In most of the speeches I've seen, he is largely fiery, passionate, melodramatically angry. Obviously there's an element of expectation and selection bias here. My question is, did humour ever play a role in Hitler's public appearances? Of course his speeches have been much mocked and caricatured now, but do we have any recorded instances of him telling jokes or using intentional comedy during his engagements - or was that counter to his desired image?

I'm interested in doing some research on the National Park Service (USA). Does anyone know any good historiography on it? Preferably from an academic press? Thanks!

I apologize in advance if this is not serious enough for this subreddit, but I'm doing some research for a short horror story set in the beginning of the 14th century featuring a Templar as the main charcater. I'm trying to stay away from sensationalism, but I'd like to play with a fantasy element that has a solid root in historical sources. I'll apreciate any information on this topic.

Thank you very much for your time

Does any record survive of what courtship & marriage looked like among the Mexica peoples around the time of the European invasion?

There is a lot to be found on the fashion of nobels in the 17th century. But what did the poor people wear in country's like France or England in the 17th century?

Here's my thought process:

1. Compared with some really different cultures like for example Canadian vs Malagasy or something, Dutch culture is not too dissimilar to German culture and they both speak West Germanic languages.
2. Germany and the Netherlands neighbor one another.
3. Germany and the Netherlands have existed in the same Empire in the past.
4. "German" is already a broad category which encompasses many different subcategories, historical regions, cultures, and dialects (Bavarian, Prussian, Saxon, Swiss, Swabian, Styrian, etc.).

So then, why aren't the Dutch and the Dutch language considered a type of German in the same way as the above groups? I guess that this could apply to Flanders, Luxembourg, and maybe Austria or Switzerland too.

Perhaps this question is just borne of my ignorance because I'm certainly no historian, but I've been wondering about this for a while. Surely there must be some sort of point at which the Dutch were defined from the Germans?

I'm not sure how closed off information sources were other than you couldn't buy rock records.

Good day, I make maps for which I do quite a but of research. While making my last map on an alternate Gaul, something stood out to me. For some reason there was a tribe called the Belgae in Britain. Confused I looked it up and it is apparently correct.

Now, I'm working on a second map, this time of Britain, and this time I discovered more of these. There were two cities named Isca, a Gaulic and Britonnic tribe both named Atrebatus, Belgae being used both in gaul and in Britain, etcetera etcetera.

I was wondering if anybody knew why this is the case? Why did/did the Romans name them like this?

I don't know that there's any charters of that sort of thing, but who might be some plausible candidates outside the obvious? Presumably Harold Godwinson's brothers the Earls of Kent and East Anglia, Edwin the Earl of Merciaand his brother Morcar the new Earl of Northumbria. What about clergymen? Stigand? Anyone else? Are there other notable nobles that might've participated?

Hello, esteemed Clioredditors,

I'm writing a novel (sort of) set during the High Middle Ages in France (c. 1100), and I've been struggling to use the accurate terms to describe clothing worn by the characters, especially female attire. During my late night, insomnia-fueled Google searches, I've come across terms like cotte, cotehardie, bliaut, tunic, surcote, etc; however, I've been finding this information primarily on Wikipedia and blogs (?), and the differences and the settings in which these garments would be used are still unclear to me as the physical descriptions provided about each garment are sometimes conflicting with one another, as well as the images after Google searches.

I read somewhere (credits due to the author) that nowadays clothing is defined by construction instead of function, now, I don't know if Medieval clothing is categorized by function other than composition within research and academia, but I found the idea interesting.

More in-depth guidance on the subject and/or direction to other kind of sources would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you in advance!

Have a nice day!