One of my professors repeatedly mentions accounts of Europeans suffering from illnesses, diseases and bad health when migrating to different climate.

Examples he mentioned are the crusaders who allegedly had problems to generate healthy offspring in the crusader states, as well as traders that settled down in India in the 18th century and suffered from unknown diseases.

Another examples that is mentioned is the alleged "unfitness" of Europeans for work on plantations in the tropics. He claimed that many europeans had a very low live expectancy in the West Indies and generally chose different areas to settle down.

It makes sense to me, that a new climate or a new environment might contain unknown diseases. But that would also have to be the case for African slaves in the Caribbean. Or is it not?

Is there any credible data on live-expectancy of europeans as compared to other newly arriving people in the tropics? Or is this alleged "unfitness" just an excuse to justify the exploitation of black slaves on tropical plantations?

I hope someone can answer this question, maybe also with respect to how it was portrayed back then and how it is seen now.

People loved venturing out to the new seas through out the history of mankind, it seems strange that no one would that though to sail over to that large land only 100 kms away

My SO has given me a Scythian trilobate arrowhead as an anniversary present. I know nothing about the culture, except what I've read on Wikipedia, and I'm looking to find out more. What would you suggest as an introduction to Scythian culture and war?

Many thanks in advance for your help!

Im making a mod on HOI4 about Soviet Politics so I have to know roughly how large the different political factions where in percentage points. I couldn’t find any information by searching so I would be verry thankfull if you could help out. Even a rough estimate would be good :)

Were they (excluding lack of maintenance) able to use their speed to good effect? What was the doctrine surrounding their use? I am referring to early in operation Barbarossa, around 1941.

What evidence is there that the Roman Catholic Church is a direct descendant of the 12 Apostles, and does the Church of England also go back to the Apostles and the British Christianity left over from Roman Britain or was in an invention of the Tudors? I am trying to find an objective as possible answer, because obviously Catholics and Anglicans have there own take on this.

Today is Canada day, which to my understanding is when Canada celebrates their Independence from Britan (yes I am an American so sorry ahead of time if I am misunderstanding something). But Canada, and many other ex-colonies for that matter such as Australia, still recognize the current British Monarch, Queen Elizibeth II as their own monarch as well. So if they are free and have gained independence then why have they chosen to still recognize the British Monarchy?

I'm something of a noob when it comes to Middle Age history since my specialty is in modern history, but I've been doing some research into the Holy Roman Empire and I just want to ask...

How did this thing stay around for 1000 years? From my quick research, the Holy Roman Empire was basically a mess of a dozen different kingdoms, principalities and territories who, on the surface, owed their loyalty to the Holy Roman Emperor, but basically ran their own affairs and in the case of the Thirty Years War, even fought wars against each other within the Empire, with the Empire having no capital aside from where the Emperor lived. The Empire didn't even have a flag, with the famous two-headed eagle being a symbol of the Emperor and not the nation itself and to add another thing to the mix, the Emperor and the Pope could never agree on who held the most authority within the Empire's borders.

So, as I said, how did the Holy Roman Empire survive up until 1806 without disintegrating at some point in the past

I was just watching a video of Queen Elizabeth II giving a toast at the White House in 1976. Her accent (and manner of speaking) compared to President Ford was, of course, a study in contrast.

She refers to her ancestor, George III, and that started me wondering about how different or similar the two Georges would have sounded if they had ever happened to be in the same room together.

Is it even possible to know how they would have sounded? Was that ever written about by their contemporaries?

I am asking for my Uncle who is a fair chase hunter and an amateur historian who likes to read about American History and the history of hunting and land development in what is now the United States from pre-colonial days through the present. He knows, in loose terms, that fair chase was a concept invented by European nobility and some of the details around how it was brought to the United States largely through the efforts of Teddy Roosevelt, but he's interested in learning about it's early development and modern popularization in more detail.

Sources for further reading would be greatly appreciated as well. Thank you!

I am reading a fiction novel about the Iroquois’s right now. I feel like Undoubtedly Europeans went through a similar stage of development… Tribes, Stone tools and primitive agriculture, that sort of thing. Is there a term for this? Would that be the “Stone Age”?

I realize the #cancelcanadaday and its related criticisms of the holiday largely revolve around the longstanding and systemic mistreatment of First Nations and other Indigenous peoples in Canada, but I was confused today when I saw the reappearance of the allegation of stolen land. To my knowledge, one of the key differences between Canadian and American westward expansion was that Canada's westward expansion was relatively bloodless (save for major events like the Red River Resistance and Northwest Rebellion) and was mostly covered by the Numbered Treaties. Furthermore, southern Ontario is a major part of eastern Canada that too was covered by a series of treaties that purchased the land. To my knowledge, most of Canada's present territory was not forcibly conquered like what happened in the New Zealand Wars or the American Indian Wars. So does the allegation of stolen land have any salt in a Canadian context? Or does the stolen land argument take more issue with the circumstances under which the treaties were signed / enforced?

Why was Edward VIII‘s marriage to Wallis Simpson (a twice-divorcee) such a big deal religiously if the Church of England was founded on the basis of Henry VIII wanting to divorce Catherine of Aragon to marry Anne Boleyn? I don’t understand why there would be an Anglican Church rule banning marriage of a divorcee when their ex-spouse is still alive if the only reason Henry VIII broke with the Vatican (and therefore create the Anglican Church) in the first place was to divorce his wife and marry another... Catherine of Aragon was still very much alive when Henry divorced her and married Anne, which was the whole point of creating the Church of England.

Hi, I'm currently writing a thriller book about burning of alexandria. Beside common history do you know any "conspiracy theory" or secret regarding the library.

Thank you

I visited Thailand before the coronavirus and i noticed quite a few statues of a seven headed snake (mostly in the north of the country), i tried googling it but could not find any satisfying answers. Can you tell me about the meaning of the snake and its role in thai history?

Recently while reading a book for a class I came upon the lines:

"It is important to note that the Enlightenment also had powerful artistic and cultural dimensions. Enlightenment philosophers and scientists rubbed shoulders with composers such as Bach, Haydn and Mozart..." The European World 1500–1800 (p. 294). Taylor and Francis.

beyond that, there is virtually no information into the nature of the relationships between the philosophers and the musicians.

I'm just curious as to what the author might consider "rubbing shoulders" or any other insights into the worlds of philosophy and music during the Age of Enlightenment.

I know that German soldiers were especially cruel to female partisans. However, I once read that the Wehrmacht also treated female soldiers as partisans, as they refused to acknowledge woman combatants, branding them instead as "Flintenweiber".

That von Kluge apparently gave an order that women in uniform were to be shot on the spot.

I read this a long time ago, so I can't find that source to verify this anymore, and google has produced few results.

Do you folks here at r/askhistorians have some info regarding this? Did the Wehrmacht shoot female combatants on the spot rather than send them to POW camps?