Random showerthought of the day, the humour behind Uranus seems simple enough that it will be pretty timeless.

Were 14 year old boys laughing at the name in science class 100 years ago? Do we have any historical records of people using it?

I have a few questions related to Marxist historiography:

1. Are Marxist perspectives of history credible enough in this contemporary age.
2. Is economic history as a separate field similar to Marxist historiography or are there economic historians who are not considered as Marxists?

The second question may sound a bit strange but it's just that I aspire to be an economic historian and don't find historical materialism(and Marxian economics) to be true in any sense, yet find that this field is dominated by such people.

Why did Hitler try to gain more ground to the East to gather raw materials for the reich if Stalin was still supplying them? Stalin was giving the reich supplies due to the non-aggression pact and Hitler was busy trying to get Britain to bend the knee. With so many of their forces spread about Europe what made him think this was a good idea?

It's only a 55 mile gap that has 2 small islands in between and the natives hunted in the ocean for whales and fish to me it does not seem impossible that the natives could have gone out saw the islands, went there and kept going

This is a moment of history that is frequently referred to as a serious loss of collective knowledge up to that point. Is there any legitimate speculation and/or theories as to what kind of knowledge exactly was lost?

I was camping in northern New Mexico recently and noticed powerlines in the most desolate, hard to reach places. How did/do we do this? Especially before the advent of modern heavy machinery and aircraft.

The subreddit has a rule about nothing in the past 20 years, I always assumed this was because it takes that long for people to become unbiased by their emotions and the going-ons in the moment. Is there something special about 20 years? Are we too biased to see the world as it is now? Won't distance from the events possibly cause us to lose sight of something important?

I am having some trouble narrowing down which one of these ww1 books I should pick.

I want to avoid books that only cover the beginning(or only the result/end ) and the lead up to the war and also books that focus too much on that combat details, for that reason I am avoiding "Guns of August", "Sleepwalkers"," The War That Ended Peace" and "The first world war by John Keegan".

Is "A World Undone" the best one to go over the whole war(Start, middle and finish) without delving into too much detail on the combat aspects? The other option I see is "Catastrophe 1914". But "A World Undone" seems the best rated on goodreads so I am leaning towards that.

I also have the same question about ww2 books. I see the following two books recommended the most often -

Inferno - Max Hastings

The second world war - Antony Beevor.

Thanks

Obviously everyone would have known when WW2 exceeded WW1 in length (mid December, 1943), but is it known at what point it started to set in to the people of the time that it was a larger conflict, a more important conflict, or a more deadly conflict? Was it after the war had come to a close? Was there a big revelation, or was it gradual?

I appreciate that this is a VERY broad and general question, and every one of your answers will be accompanied by an unavoidable "It was more complicated than that" but I think you can grasp my general meaning.

From 1066 onwards, we refer to the ruling elite of England as the Normans, as that's who they were yet by at least 1200, we stop this and simply refer to them as "The English" in the same manner as their subjects. Thus, the question becomes;

When did this change occur, how did it happen and why?

Why do we stop using the term Norman to describe the ruling elite of England, despite the fact that they are the ethnic descendants of the Norman Conquerors, spoke French as a primary language and even until 1689, the idea of the monarchy being the "Norman Yoke" was a common idea in England? Was this something they recognised themselves or do we wrongly apply the name "Norman" or English" to those in the same way as we - arguably - do to the "Byzantines?"

When do the similarities with the original Norman conquerors end and what is the point where we can refer to a collective English people, rather than an alien elite and a subdued populace?

I understand that Gavrilo Princip was probably not eating a sandwich, but he was at a deli. What is a likely option for Gavrillo? I heard that it was around 11 AM, and he was at a deli.

Given that lions are from Africa did people in Europe even know what a real lion looked like? Were they imported for something like royal menageries or something similar? Or was it all based on old stories from when they were imported during Roman times?

I noticed the flag of fascist Italy and the Kingdom of Italy were the same. I want to know why Mussolini didn't change the national flag left over from the Kingdom of Italy.

Scandinavians often have high cheek bones than others, right? Also, any info on specifically Anglo culture and specifically Saxon culture? It seems we always hear about them as already being Anglo-Saxon but what were the defining characteristics of them before they became one group essentially? Thanks in advance.

1. I have read that interest was banned by the christians so only the Jews could do it. But why did people decide to take loans from the Jews when that meant they would be charged with interest rates? What did the Rothschilds have that they could leverage into a deal?

2. I have also read that the Jews were segregated into an alley in the Holy Roman Empire. Obviously they were considered “lesser” and had less rights. What if a politician decided to take a loan from them and then cheat them. For example not paying interest or not even paying back the loan at all? I feel like it would’ve been easy for a rich politician to screw them over and get away with it.

Mustafa Kemal inherited a nation with a 95% rate of illiteracy, meanwhile countries in Europe had created school systems and education institutions dating back to the 1700s. Why didn't the Ottoman Empire create an educational system especially since the 1800 saw the Tanzimat reforms.

there's reference to it in Brave New World, so I'm guessing it was before the 1930s?

My reason for asking this is because of a professors comment. I am currently in an American History class and we were discussing A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies by Bartolomé de las Casas. The excerpt we were discussing dealt with some of the brutal acts committed by Spanish settlers and while discussing how the settlers would rape the chief of a tribes wife, my professor claimed that this act was especially reprehensible to the Native Americans as this was off limits to them even if they were engaging in war with other tribes. I doubted this because most societies and cultures have instances of this, and due to the fact that I know some tribes committed brutal acts of torture, however I can’t seem to find instances of this happening. The main things I have been able to find are current statistics on Native American crimes on reservations. Any examples or links would be greatly appreciated.

I'm looking at maps of Mongolian expansion and I see that the Empire never expanded North. This is baffling to me considering that most of the land towards the South seems arid and inhospitable, while the lands to the North seem green and lush. Am I missing something? Did their livelihood depend on raiding so much that they had to seek other nations? Were there not peaceful people in their society?

In James Diego Vasquez "From Indians to Chicanos" he claims that native americans' "goal in warfare was to capture, not kill". How true was this, and to what extent can this explain how Cortez was able to be so successful despite being so outnumbered?

What exactly does this mean to the classicists writing in the 1800s? Lucian was a Syrian, but he born in a Roman province. What exactly was it about his writing that rubbed classicists the wrong way that would cause to to lob this accusation?