I am seeing this claim being peddled again and again, I was hoping to get some clarity.

So I’m wondering about the historicity of tattoos in Europe especially after the prehistoric and Roman Empire eras where we have either archeological or documented evidence for tattooing. I’ve been looking into this for the past few days and I’ve seen some claims of crusaders getting tattooed during the crusades, possibility that Harold Godwinson had tattoos, some mentions of Richard Lionheart and the Tudors being tattooed, the Vikings of course, a couple of people saying that tattoos were mentioned in the Carolingian law codes for the Germanic tribes and by Scandinavian crusaders returning home and finding tattooed pagans in remote parts of Scandinavia. Anyway, is there any good solid evidence of tattooing being practiced anywhere in Europe past the Roman age? (or during besides the Britons/Picts). Especially what are the chances that it was practiced in Britain? William of Malmesbury (prob slaughtered that sorry) apparently claimed that the Anglo saxons were tattooed and I heard another single mention of tattooing be banned in Northumbria during a gathering of church leaders in the 8th century. Any insight into this greatly appreciated.

Would their odds of winning the war been better? It's insane to think they were fully committed to a huge genocide while also fighting a world war. That must have drained a lot of their manpower, materials, ect., right?

While I'm curious for any and all reactions, I was especially curious for perspectives on his descriptions of Viking aesthetics, of gender and sexuality in Viking society, and of the (frankly riveting) discussion of the shocking violence involved in a ship burial.

Thank you!

It might be a weird question or may have been asked a hundred times. I see so many stories and accounts of often uneducated people crossing boundaries that seem to be very hard even by today's standards. English, French, Spanish and Mandarin can get you almost anywhere nowadays. What was it like before we started to have what we know as modern languages? Specifically were there any similarities? How hard was it to cross a language barrier? Can you even realistically travel a significant distance in any direction without an interpreter?

I suppose pre 1600's. Correct me if I'm wrong but most modern languages go back about that far. Assume earlier, perhaps?

Lately I've been wondering this whole playing games like Battlefield 1 and watching WWI docs. Did the Central Powers have their own counter they didn't know they needed? What was the general reaction of metal beasts rolling towards them?

I am aware the legend is set in the region of Nottingham during the Crusades, specifically the reign of King Richard and King John, so around 1200 AD. My question is why did Nottingham become associated with the legend? Was Nottingham a particularly lawless or oppressed part of England during the time of Richard/John or even the subsequent centuries when many of the ballads/stories were composed? Could it be due to it being a midpoint on the Great North Road, effectively a decent distance from the major urban centers, but still on a key transportation hub? Curious if anyone has gone down this rabbit hole.

I know that the right to self determination was given in the 14 points, but was the general austrian sentiment one of unification? If so, why didnt it unite with germany after ww1?

For example vikings used to have thor in their name right? So i was wondering if the greeks did that too

From the tsars to the soviets to today, the perception seems to be that Russia after the middle ages seems to be particularly susceptible to authoritarian regimes compared to other nations. Is that accurate or fair?

If it does seem to be the case, what contributes to that? Scarcity of resources? Regular threat of invasion? Culture or religion?

Thanks. I'm fascinated by Russian culture and want to know more about its political character without it being diluted by stereotypes.

How would I make the long journey there? Would I likely be traveling with other prospective Varangians? Once I reach the Empire what would be the process from there?

Seemingly that jousting is the only correct way to use a lance in horse combat, but is it only jousting? I've seen clips in movies that lances are used as like a sword (Like they swing the lance to hit an opponent with the tip). I refuse to believe that Macedonian companions, Roman and Persian cataphracts, medieval lancers, winged hussars and Napoleonic lance cavalry all only jousted against their opponents.

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: War & Military! 'Can honour set to a leg? no: or an arm? no: or take away the grief of a wound? no. Honour hath no skill in surgery, then? no.' – Or so says Falstaff in Shakespeare's Henry IV, Part 1. This week, let's talk about war and the military!

At the battle of Cannae, Hannibal's troops fell back into a curved shape when the Romans met them. The Romans then pushed further, hoping to break the retreating line. But then the cavalry came from behind the Romans and encircled them. This allowed the Carthaginians to win the battle despite being heavily outnumbered. How did the Romans fall prey to this simple trick? It seems to me like it would have been easily noticeable by any decent tactician.

What were the factors leading to this seeing as Germany were "the bad guys" and racist to Asians and Italians

I’ve come across this apparently common belief that Stalin was also planning on breaking the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and invading Germany, and Hitler just beat him to the punch I guess

This idea seems really weird to me, as these “plans” of stalins are never mentioned in any article on the war I’ve ever seen

In Antony Beevor’s Stalingrad he makes quite a lot of how absolutely terrified Stalin was of war with Hitler, to the point of dismissing obvious signs of Hitler’s preparations as “English provocations” and even very nearly offering up Ukraine, Belarus, and the Baltics for peace in a Brest-Litovsk 2 sort of way, prevented from doing so only by the Bulgarian ambassador

I just really can’t square that representation with someone who was apparently planning their own offensive invasion

So, is this true? Where does this idea come from? Why would Antony Beevor not even mention this if it were true?