What did they have that others didn't? The short answer is a lot of people, but China has a lot more, so why didn't they become the main rival of the US?

Maybe this is too close to a "what if", but what I'm really wondering about is the general angle of European exploration in the time period. Suppose Columbus doesn't ever try to sail west (for simplicity's sake, let's say he never personally proposes the idea at all). How long would it have taken someone else to try the same thing? Presumably something like Magellan's attempt to circumnavigate the world would have resulted n finding the Americas, but would that have been attempted without European presence there?

Usually when we study history, at least in the biggest books and documentaries. Teachers focus on great people, on those who created macro processes.

​

Although this is cool, I would like to know how to study the history of rites, rituals, everyday objects, clothes, food, the words people used with each other, the songs they sang, the kinship hierarchies, the distributions of power in society...

​

How do you historians make this type of analysis?

Following the sub rule, trying to make it, as specific as possible, I would like to know, for example, how we know that it was Baghdad in the golden age of Islam. What bibliography could we use to try to build this world in our heads and paint with words?

How did the Scandinavian peoples during the Viking Age Perceive old age? I understand that in their religion honour was quite important, displayed by their ideas of Valhalla, Hel, and FolkVangr where the honourable go to Valhalla or Folkvangr, and the dishonourable i.e sickness cowardice etc go to Helheim. From this I get the sense that when either a member of their society reached "old" age they would probably be considered 1. Great and Wise warriors and/or 2. weak and ailing and therefore dishonourable. Is their something I am missing that would mend this disconnect or Am I Wrong?

*Old is in quotations because I recognize that to be considered old was a much earlier age then it is today

Any insights is appreciated.

I think there is a river, the Manzanares, but it is very small and shallow compared to the Thames, Danube or Tiber for example

Hi everyone. I'm thinking about writing a historical fiction, about a girl who time travels from modern Tasmania to Van Diemen's Land in the 1850s. I would love to have some input on historical accuracy. How would an Asian girl be treated in colonial Australia? Would she be allowed to live, work, and date men in the community? How would her day to day life be like? If she wants to travel to Victoria for the gold field, how likely would she be able to do that?

Thanks so much.

Are there Qing equivalents to the Rosetta Stone?

In the musical 1776 (I’m thinking particularly of the film version), there is a running joke that the Continental Congress regularly receives pessimistic dispatches from General Washington complaining of the miserable state of the continental army and despairing over the likelihood of defeat. In the movie, one member of congress says of Washington: “that man would depress a hyena,” later calling him “the gloomiest man on this continent“ and referring to his dispatches as “the most depressing accumulation of disaster, doom, and despair in the entire annals of human history.” I know it’s a little subjective, but are these descriptions (although obviously exaggerated) accurate in any way to Washington’s actual dispatches during 1776 (or any part of the war)? Is there any record of contemporaries making note of a pessimistic tone in his dispatches or of Washington having a reputation for this kind of communication? If nothing else, would such pessimism have been realistic to the actual situation on the ground in the summer of 1776?

I have a background in construction safety and casual interest in ww1 history. Trenching with modern equipment, to do things like laying pipe underground, is extremely dangerous. Even if OSHA regulations are followed to a T, accidents are still common.Men have died in trenches being dug less than 4 feet deep. The weight of soil cannot be underestimated. You will suffocate and be crushed in a matter of minutes, if not less. Rescues are overwhelmingly just recovery efforts. Seeing photos of alot of ww1 trenches, especially the British ones, they scream death trap. Was the digging a major source of casualties? Were safety precautions taken past “try to jump out if it starts collapsing”.

Was there a lobby pushing for “criminals need to be legally treated as involuntary slave laborers” argument at the time? Was there a lobby pushing against it? How much debate was there in general?

I’m getting my fill of guilty-pleasures watching the BBC adaptions of her books about the wars of the roses.

I’m really struck by how positive her depictions of the York brothers are, compared to literally everyone else. Every woman in her stories is seemingly manipulative and insufferable. On the other hand she goes out of her way to justify anything the York brothers do. She goes so far as to make a big deal of the fact that Richard III definitely didn’t kill the boys in the tower (that of course was the fault of another insufferable woman), and that he absolutely definitely seduced his young beautiful niece, who was in love with him. Henry VII, on the other hand, is a horrible abusive rapist.

I know I can’t expect a lot of historical accuracy from programmes like this, it’s supposed to be entertainment, but she seems to do a whole lot of research and I’m really surprised by her choices.

I think history probably judges Richard III too harshly, but this seems to swing too far in the other direction. Is this justified in any way? Are the reigns of Edward IV and Richard III really so positive? Was Henry VII really a savage tyrant?

I'm re-reading Cornwell's Saxon Tales series and he portrays the motivation of Danish jarls and ship crews as the push of poor lands in Denmark and the pull of rich farms in England, generally. It's only this 2nd go around that it occurred to me the raid on Lindesfarne & the battle of Edington occurred during the reign of Charlemange, before he was crowned emperor.

His wars against (ironically?) the Saxons began in 772, who were the Dane's southern neighbors and those wars prompted construction of the Danevirke, a peninsula crossing earthworks. Was viking age adventuring coincidental or only indirectly attributable to Frankish pressure? Or was there any way attacks on monasteries and invasions were part of a 'high level' or strategic response to the Frankish empire?

Are there any benefits to learning in an academic setting? Should I try to learn history in ways other than school?

Sorry if this is off topic.

(Mods, please remove this if it’s not suitable)

So I’m currently writing my PhD application in history. The project is concerned with everyday life of another ethnicity than my own, which in my own opinion is unproblematic, but which need an awareness because of historical relationships.

This is something I’ll have to adress in my application, but I haven’t managed to find any serious treatment of the topic. Therefore, do you know any works adressing the methodological consequences of writing outside your own ethnicity, especially when the subjects has a strained relationships to your own?

Cheers!

Is there any evidence to suggest they traded or communicated with one another?