This is a question that’s been niggling my brain for quite some time now: when did bliauds, the twelfth century dress with draped sleeves, go out of style?

(I’m well aware that the fashion of draped sleeves reappeared in the late 14th century with houppelandes and overgowns, but I’m focusing the bliauds of the 12th century.)

Because I’ve seen it appear in manuscripts up to 1217, and I once read that during the reign of King John, there is an order for a bliaus lined with fur for the use of the queen, implying that they were still in use in England until 1216.

So I’ve been wondering when they completely went out of style and were replaced with the more tight sleeves of the thirteenth century?

If anyone knows anything about this, I would be so grateful 😊

Hello all,

For my history class I’m expected to write a research article on any topic of my choice. One suggested topic was “the rise of the individual” which piqued my interest. Since the class is focused on the reformation and enlightenment, my research should focus on western philosophers and ideas from that time. Can anyone point me to primary & secondary sources as well as important philosophers on this topic? I have yet to form a research question, so all help is much appreciated!

Japan totally obliterated Russia as a maritime power, and did pretty much whatever they wanted to do on land, and they end up with half of some dopey little island and not a single nickel of indemnity. What was going on here? Was the war less one-sided than I think it was, or was the treaty itself more favorable to Japan in some way than is obvious on its face? Was Theodore Roosevelt or Baron Witte just that gosu in their roles as mediator and negotiator?

I'd be particularly interested if we have any Japanese internal communications or sources that have come to light over time, explaining why they were willing to let Russia off the hook from such a commanding position.

The phrase is used a few times on the series first episode on elections and strikes me as odd as Greece is taught in schools to be the birthplace of democracy and still is a democratic government. Is that claim based on a technicality? If that’s not the case, what would be the most established theory on the oldest democracy?

For example, the Spanish and Portuguese began their colonial endeavors in the 15th and 16th centuries, and the British and French began theirs in the 17th century. Yet the Dutch didn't begin colonizing what's now South Africa until the 18th century, so why did their language diverge to the point of becoming a new language when that did not happen for the aforementioned colonial powers, whose imported languages had much more time to diverge?

To expand on the question, I am curious and find myself failing to understand why the french navy remained loyal to the Vichy government, especially after the Free French had organised and established themselves. What compelled the navy to remain loyal to the Vichy government?

I just read that part of Athelstan's agreement to become King of England required him to take a vow of celibacy. Is there any other Anglo-Saxon King who also took a vow of celibacy upon Coronation?

What is the prevailing view on his existence? Were his sons real too? Was he just a legendary creation for kings to claim lineage? If he truly existed what accomplishments can we attribute to him? Who/what resources do we rely on from the time period of his existence?

So there's a couple details on how conscription worked that I'm fuzzy about. I know the Lottery was introduced in 1969 so that it at least seemed more fair, but what was the system before that? There seemed to be heavy anti-war sentiment very early in the 60s, as early as 1965. Was it just from the war itself, or was it from a draft? When did they first conscript soldiers for Vietnam?

Okay in a class I am taking on plant pathology, this week we go over Ergot and I read the following:

" This fact is especially important for much of central Europe, northern Europe, and Russia where rye was the principal food grain throughout most of recorded history beginning with the fall of the Roman Empire. Rye remained as a staple in diets of all but the wealthiest until the 1800’s when it began to be replaced by potatoes, oats, and wheat. Even into the 1900s rye continued to be important as human food when weather conditions led to shortages of other food crops such as wheat and potatoes and rye grown for animal food was used as a substitute for these crops. "

​

As this is a plant pathology class not a history class, it doesn't flesh this out, so I wonder:

What does the fall of the Roman Empire have to do with Rye? Is it just happenstance that Rye gets introduced to Central and Northern Europe just before the fall of the Roman Empire? Was Rye encouraged by the Roman government? Or where other crops being grown and sold to the Romans and people then converted back to Rye?

Regarding the wealthy and Rye. Rye bread is highly favorable and desirable today. Was Rye always the food of peasants and so that association made the rich desire wheat? Or was wheat just so much better that everybody wanted wheat but only the richer could afford it? I am guessing it's the 2nd but I don't know.

So I recently learned about the Hanseatic League and I would love to learn more about them.

I am interested in learning about my heritage, which goes back 14 generations of people who are now known as Taiwanese. I'm getting a lot of mixed information, which I think is because there is a lot of bias and opinions. Can someone please recommend books / resources on unbiased history of the island? Thank you!

Did the fall of the Roman Empire mark and improvement for the slaves, freedmen, and urban populations of Rome? Did the disintegration of the empire, its urban centers, and system of slavery, give average man a healthier, freer, and longer life? Were the systems that replaced it that much better? Did the end result differ in different regions of the empire?

After having spent some time studying tax farming in the Ottoman context, I'm now curious about its functioning in other societies as well. What is the state of our knowledge with regard to the Romans?

I'd be interested to hear in general how historians of Rome have approached it, but I do have some specific questions regarding the intersection of tax farming and politics. How were tax farmers assigned, and did control over tax farming contracts become a form of patronage for Roman political leaders? Were there any groups that attempted to create monopolies or cartels to control tax farms on a large scale? With regard to finance, did the Romans ever use tax farms as a way of anticipating revenue, by selling contracts for future collection in advance (and if so, what effect did this have on their distribution)?

Is there a tool that can help calculate this, or do you need to just be book smart and truly know your history? Lol

I’ve always struggled with understanding the ADs, BCEs, BCs, etc.

Is there a way to know this information and actually understand it without the complex use of words?

Title pretty much explains it. I heard some different things about this like Nazis were planning to make Oxford capital of Nazi UK etc. But is there any proof or anything that this is actually true or just a myth?

Did Charles Schultz get fan mail? Hate mail? Did newspapers down South stop carrying the cartoon?

I feel like whenever you hear about alcohol in the middle ages or early modern times, you mostly picture men, brewing beer, drinking too much wine or some drunken mishap.

Did women drink just as much or were there some cultural norms preventing certain women from drinking (too much)?