From what I understand it was 587 BCE, but my Jehovah’s Witness mother refuses to beleive otherwise and thinks it’s 607 BCE.

Is there any proof of one over the other?

I’ve only just found out that the Mycenaean language was a variant of Ancient Greek. I thought that it was an Anatolian Indo-European language that got completely replaced by another Indo-European language (which became Greek) and heavily influenced it, but wasn’t of the same branch as that of Proto-Greek. So it got me thinking about the various questions seen on r/AskHistorians about how mutually intelligible modern Language A is with Ancient Language A, but I’m more curious as to how much we know about the mutual intelligibility of Mycenaean Greek and the various Ancient Greek dialects.

Could an Achaean, Athenian, Theban (or anywhere in Greece for that matter) from 5th century BC be able to hold at least a bit of conversation with a 15th century BC Mycenaean Greek? Would either party understand anything but the most common words, if even that?

I saw Jay Foreman mention it briefly in one of his videos, stating that it's a heavily debated theory, but what are the evidences that point to it being true or not?

Can someone explain to me in detail the role and position of the general during the battles in ww2. What did generals do on the battlefield during ww2? After devising some sort of battle strategy, what was their job on the battlefield during the actual battle? were they involved in the battle in any way or would they literally just stand by and see if everything went according to plan? if anyone can answer, thanks!

After watching Disney’s Pocahontas with my kids, I was thinking about whether the trope of the “in sync with nature” Native American is respectful or just a ‘benevolent’ stereotype. Not that I’m trying to lean into the “European colonists did nothing wrong!” position, but I wonder if the whole “When the last tree has been cut down, the last fish caught, the last river poisoned, only then will we realize that one cannot eat money” proverb is just the opinion of First People formed after their near-obliteration and relocation or whether there was some evidence of a prehistoric EPA/endangered species conservationist attitude at the time of European arrival.

I am most interested in the indigenous relationship with forestry/agriculture in this regard (had the Americas had clearcut events prior to Christopher Columbus? Would they almost certainly have if the steel axe and ox plow been available?), but would also love to know more about fauna (were beavers being hunted with some kind of tagging system? Were the mammoth extinctions accidental, and did anyone learn anything from it?)

If they existed, did they also produce sacred texts or books? What happened to them?

I read, that feathers did probably bear symbolic/spiritual meaning in the norse as well and they apparently used them as bedding in burials, but of course also stuffed pillows with them.

Paying with feathers is also mentioned in "Historiae adversus paganos" it seems. Can it be assumed they payed in coverts rather than down or is there no indication regarding that?

Now, I also saw it mentioned that they might have been used for decoration purposes on women's clothing and also headdresses, but I couldn't find a credible source for these last claims and wanted to ask if anybody here knows wether this is true or just made-up/speculation.

In their mythology feather cloaks seem to be of importance as well. Did some important people (like goðis for example) maybe wear them as well or is this just reduced to their myths and sagas?

As the title says, the entire reason for the cold war being cold was the threat of MAD. But how did the Soviets acquire the technology to develop their own nukes? I assume it would've been a very closely guarded secret by the US, and developing them from scratch would take decades. Were multiple countries, including the soviets, working on nuclear weapons programs even before Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Was the theory already well known and only some details needed to be worked out by the Manhattan project? Or did the soviet espionage acquire so much info that they were able to jump start their own nuclear missile production?

I was wondering about the inherent risks of death: catching a stray arrow, getting bogged down in melee combat and being slower than a random opponent, etc. It seems like as morale-boosting as it may have been for one's military, it would be excessively risky as death could mean an immediately destabilization of one's government. Or were plans of succession already in place before each battle?

If we look at the early history of the world, a lot of wealth and power sits in the Mediterranean. Egypt, Carthage, Rome, Greece, Hittities, etc. All were concentrated in the Mediterranean. Yet if we look at later history we see a noticeable shift. Instead of being dominant, Greece is conquered by the ottomans, Italy is split between warring kings princes, Spain is conquered by the armies of the caliphate, Egypt conquered again and again, etc. All the major power centers collapse or die off. After this point, it seema the balance of power shifts north. The hanseatic league, HRE, habsburgs, Franks and other Germanic tribes. All rose in prominence.

But why? Why after the fall of the roman empire did the Mediterranean never regain its power and wealth? Why did Northern Europe come to supersede southern in terms of empire building, colonization, and general levels of power and wealth? Why does this divide still exist today?

Studying warrior elites of Japan's medieval period, I can't help but notice that the social elite (and beyond, likely) constructed networks of non-blood related kinship ties. In part, this served to support political alliance, but also to strengthen lord-vassal or similar clientele relationships. This was done not just via the classic "exchange of women" (i.e., marriage), but also through designation of wet nurses, who (with their husbands) served as surrogate parents and often also early tutors to the children, and, notably, through the so-called eboshioya: a man takes the role of guardian for another's son on the occasion of the child's rite of passage to adulthood. The idea of designating a relative or even stranger to a role resembling the latter exists in Christian culture as well in the form of the godparent.

Accordingly this is my question: Although marriage networks for European aristocrats are quite well studied, were other practices to socially construct pseudo-kinship ties also utilized both to create and support personal or political ties by social elites? And, more specifically, who was generally tasked with the duty of godparent (esp. in case of the top social stratum, e.g., royalty)?

Some guideposts if focus is of need: Yes, the question is rather broad ("Europe" is not very specific, but then marriages between nobles also transcended borders!); hence, a focus on Central/Western Europe — modern UK, France, Germany — would be fine, should someone unexpectedly swim in an abundance of material. Also, I'd be more interested in the Early and High Middle Ages, since those roughly coincide with the focus of what I study in my usual non-European context.

Welcome to Tuesday Trivia!

If you are:

• a long-time reader, lurker, or inquirer who has always felt too nervous to contribute an answer
• new to /r/AskHistorians and getting a feel for the community
• Looking for feedback on how well you answer
• polishing up a flair application
• one of our amazing flairs

this thread is for you ALL!

Come share the cool stuff you love about the past!

We do not allow posts based on personal or relatives' anecdotes. Brief and short answers are allowed but MUST be properly sourced to respectable literature. All other rules also apply—no bigotry, current events, and so forth.

For this round, let’s look at: Terrorism! This week's theme is terrorism. Know the history of a terrorist who was later immortalized as a freedom fighter? A freedom fighter who is now described as a terrorist? This week is a space to explore how people have used fear to change their lives or how living in fear has changed their lives. Let’s take a hard look at the history of people choosing to use violence and fear to get people’s attention.

There is of course the classic AMA on "feudalism didn't exist" here, but it's nearly a decade old. Have there been any recent developments in medievalist studies? Is the current consensus pointing one way or another, or is there not really a dichotomy of feudlalism did/didnt exist anymore? Have any frameworks been developed? Of course I understand that this is a very broad question, so equally broad, general and vague answers are welcome.

I'm interested in her day-to-day activities and if she were given any privileges. How did the guards treat her? Did she communicate with the outside world?

i watch movie Belle and pride and prejudice, they seem to think that amount is small, so i recall jane austen has £600 and she was a succesful published author.

so is she an heiress with almost double jane austen net worth?

I was watching the movie Midway 2019 and something baffled, the Americans were outgunned outmanned outnumbered outplanned yet they won against the Japanese who on papers at least had the upper hand.

What course of event let to this unexpected output?

In HBO's "House of the Dragon", an essential plot element presented in the show is that medieval people and especially lords would never accept a female as monarch. Although the TV show is obviously fiction, the genre is set in low fantasy which is still somewhat grounded in reality. How did real people in the High/Late Middle Ages react to a woman as a monarch? Did they find it as completely unacceptable as they do in the show? Is this notion of disdain for female monarchs ahistorical since we have real examples like Elizabeth I who is considered one of England's greatest sovereigns?

I've heard the theory a few times in the past years that we could take a baby human from ~70,000 years ago and raise them today without any developmental issues.

So if that is around the mark of "biologically modern humans" then what was life like for them?

I'm assuming 100% nomad lifestyle? Very basic vocal language? Very basic burial rituals?

Looking back to my world history courses in high school, I remember we had several sections that talked about Persia.

The first one talked about the first river civilizations: Babylonians, Chinese, Egyptians and Indians, we talked a bit about their religions, so there's no surprise that Zoroastrianism wasn't mentioned.

Second one talked about the Greco-Persian war, and we focused heavily on the misconceptions Greeks had about Persians, and it also focused on Alexander and his successors, no mention of Zoroastrianism (even though Alexander is hated by Zoroastrians for destroying texts).

Third one talked about the Silk Road and how Parthia, the Assyrians, etc. acted as the taxman of the Silk Road keeping the different Rome's from having direct relations with China, still no mention of Zoroastrianism.

Fourth, one talked about the Muslim conquest and how it changed the different countries it yoinked.

We went into relatively big depth on Pre-Islamic Persian history, yet we didn't talk about it, but we talked about Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Confucianism and hell even Shintoism. Why is Zoroastrianism glossed over like that?

I´m not american and didn't go to an american school I feel my history courses in highschool where really good but I feel let down that I found out about this cool relegion after I graduated and I read a bit about it's history and It's cool af