I'm reading "The Guns of August", and in the chapter "Home before the Leaves fall", the author mentioned 2 instances when German embasssy/legation was "taken over" by American ambassadors after Germany declared war on France and Belgium, respectively.

What is the meaning of this action?

Saw this on a meme, couldn’t find any data supporting the claim so figured I’d ask you folks

Currently doing a short essay and I can’t seem to find much on the market revolution. Any help would be much appreciated!

I get it. We're living through a scary and (dare I say) historical time right now, between COVID and the riots, and all the rest. I also understand the desire for advocacy in the face of it all, and in fact sympathize.

However, this subreddit has always been devoted to the study of and discussion of history, not present events. Over the years this rule has been strictly enforced by a moderating team who (I believe) truly wanted to make this subreddit conform to its purpose, rather than becoming a hotbed of political activity and discussion.

This past couple of days has flown in the face of all of that, between the mods 'taking a stand' against hate speech on reddit by symbolically shutting down the sub, to the earlier (admittedly well-written and informative) piece from a historian on the history of police brutality visa-vie African-Americans.

I understand, truly, the emotions everyone is feeling and the desire to make a difference. But, I respectfully submit, this subreddit is not and should not be the place to do that. Please remain committed to the idea that we should only analyze history that is truly history, and not descend into selective commentary based on the personal opinions and emotions of those empowered to moderate this subreddit.

Thank you.

/EndUnpopularOpinion

In van gogh's "potato eaters" some farmers are depicted while dining and drinking a black beverage identified as coffee in my textbook (and Wikipedia) . However a friend of mine, who took an art class, pointed out that wasn't coffee but some kind of vegetable infusion because "farmers were too poor to afford coffee". So, I'm asking you the question: was coffe really so expensive in the late 18th century Netherlands? If so, what kind of vegetables were used in the infusion?

Hi!

I recently did a piece of artwork where I imitated Glagolithic for a few background book covers (they will definitely read like complete gibberish, but I love the way the language looks!) My project got me wondering about a few aspects of both written word and the creation of artwork in the oldest civilizations on record.

I’d love your perspective on these four questions, r/AskHistorians. I hope multiple questions are allowed.

Questions

•What is the earliest example of a written language? Are all of the oldest examples of written messages carved in stone because that’s what was primarily used, (or is it that stone is more resilient to the test of time?)

•Are there any ancient language discoveries, so far-removed from any other known language, that they are completely impossible to translate?

•What is the oldest culture most commonly credited for the invention of paper? Or is it still an ongoing debate?

•Did people throughout history really use cured leather to write messages on, or is that just a fantasy genre myth?

I don’t know much about ancient world history, so forgive me if this is a novice set of questions! I’m fascinated by early examples of written communication.

I was wondering since the majority of Native Americans were wiped out by old world diseases that they had no antibodies for, whether something like this happening in the new world was inevitable? Meaning assuming Europeans had not found the Americas when they did and perhaps it took another 100-300 years etc. to discover them, perhaps by another group of people (like explorers from Asia or Africa perhaps) that also carried many of the same diseases but potentially came with more peaceful intentions thus there not being any warfare and genocide that would exacerbate infection rates, would millions of Native Americans still have been wiped out by the diseases regardless of how contact was made with them?

For example assuming today the Americas were discovered for the first time, would we be able to simply prevent such a catastrophe by sending in completely healthy individuals who would then vaccinate significant portions of the Native population and thus old world diseases would not have nearly the catastrophic impact they have today?

Would that then mean that basically the only time contact would have been safe was after vaccinations were readily available and any time before that would still have had the same result?

Reading vol. 8 of Germany and the Second World War, I was shocked to find it repeating the myths of the Eastern Front about the supposed Soviet "human wave" attacks which I thought were dispelled by modern Western historians like Glantz who utilize the Russian archives. Yet here the authors cite B. Liddell Hart and other old Western secondary sources to the effect that "the Germans were forced to concede ground because of the pressure of sheer weight of numbers against them" comparing the Soviet advance to a steamroller. The volume also disregards official Soviet reports as propaganda and instead cites revisionist Russian historians like Sokolov while at the same time accepts at face value official documents compiled by the Wehrmacht. Can I trust this work of history or have the authors allowed their German patriotism to distort their historical research?

Chile seems bizarre in terms of its geography. It's 4000 km from north to south, but only about 200-300km wide for the most part. While I understand that this is of course in large part because it's on one side of the Andes, why is the entire strip between Peru and the southern tip of the continent a contiguous political entity? Was it a coherent unit when independence was declared?

Grammar error due to word limit. It should read, "documents proving that a noble..." and "How common was it?"

It is a story I have heard but never been able to verify. Supposedly, in the later part of the 19th century the Prince of Wales (later Edward VII) hosted some diplomatic function as a stand in for his mother, Queen Victoria. The German Crown Prince was in attendance, as was the King of Hawaii. The German Crown Prince supposedly complained about being placed lower in honour/rank than the King of Hawaii (who was dark/brown) and the Prince of Wales, supposedly answered (please forgive my usage of deragotary terms here, the original quote included it and supposedly stresses the bluntness of the Prince of Wales' reply), "Either he's a King and outranks you, or he's just a bloody kaffer and should not be here at all."

Is there any truth to this? And if so, does it show that the Prince of Wales had a more modern view on race than most Europeans at the time (despite the use of a deragatory label for the King of Hawaii) that rank or status was more important than race?

Hi there so we have a lot of info about cretan archer in the alexander - roman period about what armor/headgear they r wearing. But what would their bows look like is it just composite bow that looks like the Persian ones ? Or do they have a distinctive look to them? Also do they draw with the Mediterranean draw or thumb draw? Im actually trying to re-enact as one so I need specifics if anyone knows. Thx !

title

From a 1937 excerpt of Goebbels diary: "The Fuhrer on Christianity and Christ. [Christ] was also against Jewish world domination. Jewry had him crucified. But Paul falsified his doctrine and undermined ancient Rome. The Jew in Christianity."

Now as far as I know, Hitler's views on Christianity is rather similar to Nietzsche's views except with characteristic Hitlerian distortions of Nietzche's work, i.e. added racial antisemitism, among other falsifications. Essentially: Jesus was not truly divine, but he was a good man even though Christianity ended up becoming the most widespread form of slave morality in the west, something that has crippled the aryan "master race" and made them weak (makes me feel disgusting even typing that phrase "master race" lol).

What I don't really get though is what Hitler is saying in regards to Paul? Wasn't Paul literally the exact opposite of what Hitler is saying he was? Paul was the man responsible for repudiating the judaizers like Jesus's brother as well as Peter, and ultimately making it so that gentile converts didn't have to observe Jewish dietary restrictions, get circumcised, etc.

Paul was also the man who is largely credited with infusing Hellenic philosophy into Christianity which was pretty much 100% Jewish theologically as Jesus was trained in the law and a devout Jew

Furthermore, the early Jewish Christians who weren't cool with gentile converts not becoming Jews really, REALLY seemed to despise Paul. In fact John of Patmos dedicated many segments in the Book of Revelations where he describes in vivid detail how those 'false' Pauline Christian gentiles as well as Pauline Jews would be punished by God and ultimately thrown into the lake of fire. (For more info on this, see the book Revelations: Visions, Prophecy, and Politics in the Book of Revelation by world leader in Biblical scholarship Elaine Pagels)

So... I'm just really confused by that statement Hitler made. Even though he was more than likely a complete sociopath and very evil and wrong about a ton of things, there's little question that he was an intelligent guy, so what the hell was he talking about when he said Paul basically jewified Christianity? Was his syphilis making his brain act all retarded? Had he smoked a little bit too much meth that night with Herr Goebbels?

Im sorry if my infos are quite vague. But i need the name of the battle ( or place where it happend)

When i was in school we once visted an old german castle and a guy told us storrys about the Medival time. He told us about an ancient battle in wich the sieging ones caught some of the children of the villages around the castles. They later chained the children to thier siegetower so the defending castle wouldnt try to brun it down.

Thats all the info i got.

Sry for my bad english.

One thing that interests me about Hinduism is the concept of Brahman, the universal spirit that’s in everything and which the Hindu gods come from.

That makes me wonder, did other ancient pantheons have a similar concept? Did the Greeks and Romans believe in a force above the gods? We’re the fates symbolic of this? What about Mesopotamian or Egyptian mythologies?

I mean no offense by comparing Hinduism to other historic pantheons, I understand there are big differences between them as Hinduism is a modern axial Religion. I’m just curious if they shared the concept of a supreme universal spirit.

Thank you

Are there any sources to find blueprints/ technical drawings of tanks from world war 2 with all parts and measurements on them?