Every region in or around the Alps is very wealthy, even by European standards: Switzerland and Liechtenstein have amongst the highest incomes in the world, Austria has some of the world's highest quality of life cities, Northern Italy is the richest part of that country, Bavaria is the richest region of Germany, and Rhône-Alpes is the wealthiest region of France after Paris and the surrounding areas; even Slovenia is far wealthier than the other former nations of Yugoslavia. This wealth is also often based on strong professional and manufacturing sectors (e.g. Swiss finance and the Bavarian automobile industry) rather than just ski tourism. As far as I’m aware, other mountainous regions around the world are known for being poor and isolated (e.g. Appalachia, the Himalayas, the Caucasus, the Atlas mountains etc) and even in Europe stereotypes endure about 'backwards' Alpine farmers, so how, when and why did the wider Alpine region become such an economic powerhouse?

I was reading about the captain's black beard life, his lootings, his battles and his end.

I discovered that his ship the "Revenge of Queen Anne" was an old French slave ship, which was captured and delivered to Blackbeard in the future.

my question is, what did the pirates do with the slaves of the stolen slave ships? Did the pirates kill the slaves? Did they sell? Did they recruit as a crew?

So I know that the Swastika was not an original symbol created by the Nazis and every source I look into has varying answers. Was it even Hitlers idea to adopt the Swastika?

I was just reading about bullets being fired from guns on holidays (4th if july, etc.) coming back down to earth with lethal force. I’ve also been playing a lot of IL2: Sturmovik (WWII flight simulator) lately and I realized that there were several high caliber rounds being fired at high altitude over populated areas at the time. Were there any accounts of people who may have been far enough away to not even know a dogfight was happening just suddenly be peppered by stray .50 cal or even bigger cannon fire?

As a Christian, I have recently been appalled at some of my fellow believers unyielding support of Trump and the Republican Party, even when it seems clear to me that they do not care about real Christian virtues. It seems baffling to me, but it seems to go a few generations back. What’s the history behind this religious-political connection?

Basically what the title says. Why did the Nazis use an established symbol in the east (india) with other meanings attatched to it rater than a more descriptive icon in relation to their motive. Taking the example of the USSR flag, it showed the hammer and the sickle representative of the fact that it is a country of the common peasant (although it wasn't the case).

Edit: decided to ask on this sub as I couldn't find any proper reasons and found just theories online

Has anyone studied ancient knowledge of rivers?

Specifically, I'm curious about when, where and why ancient peoples defined rivers and gave them unique names. Additionally whether they any of their insights agree with modern hydrology. Any mention of what we now know as a watershed or catchment basin?

Did he believe that his policies like centralising farming in kolkhozes was a "good" communist thing to do and not just a cover up to curtail the rich farmers and get a direct control over whole farming sector. Which lets him control farmers on a tight leash and make them rebel less.

So did he use his power to simply further his personal goals and strengthen his position or did he did everything he did with communism in mind?

Hello!
In an older book I just read they dated Hammurabi 2123-2081 BC.
A quick Google search for "hammurabi 2123-2081" gives numerous results, but pretty much all of them from google.books.

The way I learned it, and according to modern sources, he reigned in the 1700s BC. I assume at some point the estimate was changed based on new information?

Does anyone here know when and what we found out that allowed us to correct the date?

For example, if an Estonian or Ukrainian was in the Soviet military and stationed somewhere else across the country when the USSR broke apart, what happened to that person? Did they have to continue serving their term in the military, or were they ejected from the country?

I don't necessarily need to get stuck in the single case study here - the idea of this question is to apply generally to issues of authenticity, multiplicity and provenance for medieval relics.

I've been reading about Aethelstan's donation of (amongst other things) the Lance of Longinus, that was used to pierce Christ's side at the Crucifixion, to the monks of St Cuthbert in the 930s AD. I'm sure there are many other incidents across Medieval Europe that raise similar questions.

Essentially:

1. Being men of the world, we must both be aware that fraudsters and forgeries are out there - what makes us confident that our relic is genuine and that the others are not?
2. How do we, as educated, religiously-minded Medieval people, get our heads around the 'impossibly' large number of relics all claiming to be the same thing?
3. Is anyone likely to raise an eyebrow that this lance is apparently 900 years old? Or would 'it's a miracle' be explanation enough?
4. Are there consequences to which relics we consider genuine - for example, if the Pope claims to hold a certain relic, is it a problem if I go and pray to a relic somewhere else that claims to be the same thing?
5. How much 'good faith' is likely to be going on here - does the king genuinely expect me to believe that he's got the real thing, and do I think he genuinely thinks he does? Or is neither of us particularly bothered?

I know that in the Early Modern period the Church created an official body to authenticate relics, but how did these questions get resolved before that?

I recently heard on a call of Cthulhu podcast of all places that the Confederacy used camels because they were stronger than horses. Is this true?

I know that the "confession booth" as we know it today was invented in the 16th Century, but before that, was confession public or private? If it was something just anybody could be present for, when did it start to become private, just between the confessor and the Priest(and God)?

I'm watching the Patriot (I know) and there's a scene where one of the Americans comes home to his dead family, leading to him shooting himself in the head with his flintlock pistol. Mel Gibson then lets everyone who witnessed it take a week off.

How common was suicide in general? Would they have reacted in this way, just kinda going home for a week? Was suicide still seen through a Christian lens, that it was sinful? Would the survivors left behind be ostracized or shunned in anyway because of this? What was the most common way to commit suicide if not by firearm?

I study fashion/textile history as a hobby and it's common to come across the term "transitional fashion" to explain how dress is moving in one direction or another. I've seen it applied to almost all eras to discuss any number of features, from waist placement to sleeve width to hat usage. For example, the rising waistlines of 1780-90s or the puffed sleeves and rounded skirts of the 1820s are often described as transitional. I've always thought that fashion is, by nature, a dynamic creation in a perpetual state of transition, but the term implies that there is an eventual stagnation or end point for a particular style.

How is the term applied in sartorial history? Do people know they are living in a 'transitional' period? Are there any dates that are definitively not transitional and if so, how are they defined in contrast?

I’m mostly looking for good resources so I can be better educated when arguing with proconfederacy flag/monument types of ppl who also argue that the confederacy was for states rights.

Also looking for how the confederate daughters of America managed to rewrite the history of the civil war in the south.

I do hope I posted in the right spot, If not I apologize!

He died in april 1918, so just a few months before the war ended. Supposing he recieved news of the war during his imprisonment, did he express what he felt about being a key trigger to the war? Or are there no records on this?

Note: This was recently removed from ELI5 (I believe incorrectly), on the grounds that I am looking for subjective responses. I'm not. I'm trying to find the answer to this question from experts in the field.

When I look at medieval art for example, often the paintings look almost child like, as though there was a dearth of truly talented people back then. I grant that the impressionists for example had a lot more tools to work with, by virtue of technological advancement. Surely though there would have been individuals that could paint a scene as they saw it, much like some of the talented artists we all know or went to school with.

Is this gradual improvement a consequence of the slow emergence of new techniques?

To take an extreme example, Egyptian tomb decorations and even ancient cave paintings seem to be simple animals and gods in profile view. Was the idea of realistic painting of say a landscape just not part of the human psyche back then?

Hope I’m making sense, perhaps some art history majors could provide the answer?

Hello, I've seen in some tv shows and videos I've seen in the past that unlike most of the other colonies - France considered Algeria an integral part of France. Why? I know it's one of the first French colonies and was one of the last to remain part of the French republic. What was there in Algeria? Am I not aware of a specific abundant resource there? The people are obviously different from French in religion ethnicity and culture... So what was there?