1 Answers 2020-06-17
For the original population of Egypt and the starters of some of the earliest civilizations people tend to not associate them with those accomplishments but attribute them to the current makeup of the population of those areas.
For example most of the early Pharaoh's mummies are of Amazigh corpses. It's to the point that some people think your racist when you point out that the Pharaoh's didn't look like sub-Saharan Africans and infact probably didn't look like any ethnic group currently alive except modern Amazigh. Why was they essentially written out of history books.
1 Answers 2020-06-17
The great spartacus’ woman is taken away and is now a slave in a mine, they retrieve her but she is obviously very weak and extremely badly treated, almost as if she was not far from death and would be worked to death in the mines.
My question is, I always thought even though Roman slaves were obviously ultimately slaves, they were treated with a certain level of respect and even had the opportunity sometimes to buy their freedom.
Is the portrayal of a slave being worked to death in a mine in the Roman Empire not in keeping, or is this a reality for some slaves, and that simply, some slaves were treated better than others?
2 Answers 2020-06-17
What was the need for the edict of Milan? (Like, I don't think they cared about religion tolerance that much in 313 AD.) Like, did it make Rome stronger? Also, what was the adverse effect of the edict?
1 Answers 2020-06-17
1 Answers 2020-06-17
I’m currently working on a fantasy novel with an empire inspired by the Roman Empire. One character in the empire was inspired by Julius Caesar. What was Caesar like? How did he treat his allies, soldiers, citizens, etc? What did he like? What did he dislike? How did he lead his empire? What was his view on life? Etc etc.
2 Answers 2020-06-17
1 Answers 2020-06-17
I saw this mentioned briefly in another thread. Aside from being totally horrible, why would this be a thing? Did they think it led to the 'truth', or was it simply tradition/custom?
1 Answers 2020-06-17
I was reading a review of a book by Tom Holland "DOMINION: THE MAKING OF THE WESTERN MIND"
It seems like Holland's thesis is summed up with this line: "He argues that most of the things that we consider to be intrinsic and instinctive human values are actually nothing of the sort; they are primarily and fundamentally the product of Christianity and would not exist without the last 2000 years of Christian dominance on our culture."
I want to ask how much this can verified, some of the stuff mentioned here I have read about in the past in such a way that would suggest it certainly does exist outside a Christian, Western context. On the face of it, it seems like an argument that can be taken as another example of Western exceptionalism, almost an idea that Christianity is the source of true morals that non-christian cultures are deprived of.
Some key bits to hit upon, the first is about the conception of slavery as being inherently an evil act:
"Origen wondered at seeing man in God through Christ. Thinking in the opposite direction, Gregory of Nyssa wondered at seeing God in man; and by this he meant all men, including slaves. In his Fourth Homily on Ecclesiastes, Gregory does not mince words:
“What price did you put on rationality? How many obols did you reckon the equivalent of the likeness of God? How many staters did you get for selling the being shaped by God? ‘God said, let us make man in our own image and likeness’ (Gen 1:26). If he is in the likeness of God, and rules the whole earth, and has been granted authority over everything on earth from God, who is his buyer, tell me? Who is his seller?”
There is a great deal of Seneca in what Gregory says, but unlike the Stoics, Gregory of Nazianzus or his brother Basil, Gregory does not temper his condemnation by making excuses for the institution of slavery to justify its continuation. In defiance of all ancient thinkers before him, he declares it to be simply wrong – end of story."
The next is about the notion of assisting the less fortunate and poor in society simply for the sake of helping them rather than because it increases the status of the wealthy:
"Today, the idea that we should care for others, help the weak, give to assist the needy and feel sorrow at the afflictions of the vulnerable and exploited is thought to be normal and obvious. TV ads for charities and aid organisations do not have to argue all humans have a right to dignity by merit of being human, they simply assume we all understand this. So it is difficult for us to imagine how radical it was for people like Gregory and Macrina or the others Holland highlights in this part of his book (Martin of Tours, Paulinus of Nola) to help the helpless purely because they recognised the paradox of a divine Christ as a suffering human being in these fellow humans. Rich people had done good works before. Ancient nobles were expected to endow great public buildings, hold games, races and gladiatorial shows, give free grain and bread to the populace of their city or support centres of learning or healing. But this was because that was seen as reflecting their dignitas and to their glory and esteem. It was not because they saw the people these acts assisted as their equals, equally reflecting the divine and so intrinsically worthy of equal dignity. That idea would have been alien, bizarre and even repellant. The fact that it is familiar, normal and attractive to us shows, as Holland argues, that we are like fish swimming in essentially Christian water. We barely even notice we are doing it."
Next is the idea that secular division between Church and State is uniquely Western and Christian:
"This division of life into that which is “secular” and that which is “religious” is peculiarly western and relatively recent. In a later chapter Holland traces the strange effects of its imposition by colonial westerners on cultures where it really did not fit. So Indian rites and cultural practices that were intrinsic to life on the sub-continent were made to conform to western conceptions of “religion” and “the secular” by creating the concept of something called “the Hindu religion” or “Hinduism”, where a whole variety of “religious”-looking practices, traditions, ceremonial and ideas were jammed, rather awkwardly, into the western concept of “religion” and given a neat label.
In medieval Europe, however, this new conception of a division between “the secular” and “the religious” was to have revolutionary effects. With the fall of the Western Empire and the centuries of chaos and fragmentation that followed, the Church in the west needed new powerful patrons for protection. The barbarian warlords and kings converted to the Catholic faith, but in the process the Church came to be dominated by its new protectors. Much of Western Christianity took on a distinct and oddly Germanic flavour, with Christ often depicted as a chieftain surrounded by his disciples as a comitatus, or warband of followers. Off on the western fringes of Europe, Celtic Christianity took on even more strange characteristics. And the Church became increasingly subsumed within a complex network of obligations, exchanges of favours and lordship over lands in return for services and dues. Bishops and priests were appointed by local potentates, rich church benefices were reserved for relatives and allies of the dominant lord in a given region and ecclesiastical offices were regularly bought and sold."
And finally the idea that revolutionary movements in the west have some intrinsically Christian basis, whether or not they explicitly mention religion:
"Similarly, the revolutions that reshaped the modern western world from Europe to America also had their origin in this very western and, ultimately, Christian idea of renewal and purification. It is ironic that movements that saw Notre-Dame (briefly) reconsecrated as “the Temple of Reason” in Revolutionary France or the establishment of a 3.5 million strong “League of Militant Atheists” in Soviet Russia had a fundamentally Christian impulse deep in their genes."
I've heard this notion before, and specifically that the idea of secular divisions in society is particular to Christianity, but I don't know if this is actually well accepted among academics and I find myself a bit leery since it seems to be very strongly playing up the certain ideas about western cultural superiority, the 'Judeo-Christian values' meme but with a nicer presentation. Like just on the slavery question, I understand that the curious usurper emperor of the Xin Dynasty Wang Mang abolished slavery and justified doing so on Confucian principles, almost simultaneous to Jesus's historical existence, but then I might have the full story on that particular incident.
1 Answers 2020-06-17
So for example take the french-german frontline, my question is about the triple point where that frontline intersects with switzerland.
What stopped the soldiers from flanking through the neutral country, sure its technically a declaration of war to the neutral country but what stopped soldiers from doing it anyways? Also, were borders defined clearly enough for people to even know where one country ends and another starts?
Did the trenches just stop all of a sudden and both sides "agreed" to not go any further? Did neutral nations have to station their own soldiers at the border to enforce their neutrality? If so, were those soldiers effecticely sitting there, watching the others fight it out a few 100 meters away?
Confusion is often a big part of warfare, especially back in ww1, were there cases of people suddenly ending up where they shouldnt be?
The concept of a triple border with one nation being neutral is just... weird to me.
Thanks for any answers
1 Answers 2020-06-17
(How do historians themselves respond to one of the major questions of the 20th century in the philosophy of history, perhaps best epitomized by the perceived tension between Hegel's dialectics and Nietzsche's genealogy)?
EDIT: Instead of downvoting my question, still awaiting for responses, which I consider a rather petty and pointless thing to do (as in not contributing to anything), you can come out of the dark and raise your objections in the comments section, so that we might all learn something. Cheers!
2 Answers 2020-06-17
2 Answers 2020-06-17
Please Be Aware: We expect everyone to read the rules and guidelines of this thread. Mods will remove questions which we deem to be too involved for the theme in place here. We will remove answers which don't include a source. These removals will be without notice. Please follow the rules.
Some questions people have just don't require depth. This thread is a recurring feature intended to provide a space for those simple, straight forward questions that are otherwise unsuited for the format of the subreddit.
Here are the ground rules:
Top Level Posts should be questions in their own right.
Questions should be clear and specific in the information that they are asking for.
Questions which ask about broader concepts may be removed at the discretion of the Mod Team and redirected to post as a standalone question.
We realize that in some cases, users may pose questions that they don't realize are more complicated than they think. In these cases, we will suggest reposting as a stand-alone question.
Answers MUST be properly sourced to respectable literature. Unlike regular questions in the sub where sources are only required upon request, the lack of a source will result in removal of the answer.
Academic secondary sources are prefered. Tertiary sources are acceptable if they are of academic rigor (such as a book from the 'Oxford Companion' series, or a reference work from an academic press).
The only rule being relaxed here is with regard to depth, insofar as the anticipated questions are ones which do not require it. All other rules of the subreddit are in force.
50 Answers 2020-06-17
I was recently reading Simon Innes-Robbin's Dirty Wars: a Century of counter-insurgency and although the book doesn't directly deal with politics of decolonization he mentions that the Suez crisis did have an affect on political-military attitudes etc to some of France/Britain's colonies (e.g. Cyprus).
I just wondered to what extent the French-British defeat at Suez directly/indirectly affected colonial policies and attitudes to decolonization e.g. was it largely business as usual or did it cause a reappraisal of decolonization and its pace etc?
Thanks for reading
1 Answers 2020-06-17
In such films as Barry Lyndon, which is praised for its historical accuracy, we see the British Army using a non-snared drum (or hollow-sounding drum) for military marching.
However in other historically accurate films such as Master and Commander, we hear that the military drum being used is snared (making a high-pitched crack when struck with a drumstick).
In such 18th century historical reconstructions such as the Fortress of Louisbourg and (if I’m not mistaken) Colonial Williamsburg, a drum with a snare is used for military drumming.
Which is historically accurate?
1 Answers 2020-06-17
I was watching the great historical film Master & Commander from 2003 the other day, and seeing that the boats are not only almost entirely made of wood, but that some parts are literally always wet, it got me wondering just how they fought off rotting wood all throughout the ship, both inside and out. From this, I of course realized that this would always have been an issue throughout the ages up until metal ships became more popular, and of course even then they surely must’ve had to deal with tons of rust.
Were there any known methods? Was the wood treated somehow, and if so, with what?
1 Answers 2020-06-17
I'd like to be able to educate those that support or brandish Confederate flags on occasion, and I'm hoping for some help in fact checking a post I saw this morning :
Confederate Flag Post x 'Cool Guides'
Thank you in advance for any help!
1 Answers 2020-06-17
Lately I have been seeing a lot of debate over Christopher Columbus, and while most seem to agree he was a cruel man he does have quite a few defenders. A debate I have seen pop up a few times is in regards to a letter he wrote.
People on one side take this line as proof he was a sex trafficker: “There are plenty of dealers who go about looking for girls; those from nine to ten are now in demand, and for all ages a good price must be paid.”
While people on the other side assert the very next line to show that he actually condemned sex trafficking: “I assert that the violence of the calumny of turbulent persons has injured me more than my services have profited me; which is a bad example for the present and for the future. I take my oath that a number of men have gone to the Indies who did not deserve water in the sight of God and of the world.”
It appears some are asserting that the people “who did not deserve water in the sight of god and the world” are the sex traffickers, while others are asserting that those are the turbulent persons spreading calumny about Columbus.
I am curious to hear what some Historians have to say about this.
1 Answers 2020-06-17
So I once heard somewhere that Hermann Göring, unlike the other high-up nazi officials, wasn't actually a sincere nazi and antisemite, but still a horrible person who used the nazi rhetoric to extort money out of minorities and Jews. Apparently, he had no real ideology whatsoever and just agreed with whatever Hitler said and that's why he was so well liked by everyone and got all the high positions in government. He supposedly largely acted out of profit, not ideological conviction and made himself a big fortune out of the war and the genocides. Is this true? In what way did Göring support nazism?
1 Answers 2020-06-17
Was there a big difference between Labour and Conservative governments, for example... or not really? To what extent were British responses to independence demands based on the political ideology of the Prime Minister, or were they more a civil servant thing? How much pressure from the British people towards the government was there to decolonise or not?
1 Answers 2020-06-17
Africa is a resource rich continent and I've always been taught colonialism was the reason they were never able to develop at a similar speed to other countries and the conversation has always ended there, but am I not right in saying China and many other countries have had to overcome just as many hardships and have gone on to prosper.
I use China because it's an example of countries uniting to form what would become a superpower in a very short time.
Why haven't African countries been able to replicate this?
If the subject is too vast, recommended reading would also be appreciated.
1 Answers 2020-06-17
If Hitler banned jazz and swing which was the popular music genre at the time what kind of music did germans listen to under the Nazi government?
1 Answers 2020-06-17
In 1776, Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence which included the phrase "all men are created equal". Since the phrase eludes to creation, I always assumed that the phrase must have a Christian origin, perhaps a restatement of a verse from the Bible, or a paraphrase from some medieval monk. But at the same time, Jefferson himself diverged from traditional Christianity and was influenced by Voltaire who was a strong critic of religion during the age of enlightenment.
So what is the true origin of this phrase, does it derive from Christianity, or from secular humanism?
2 Answers 2020-06-17