Traditionally, before the age of birth certificates, majority was based less on age and more on whether the individuals concerned exhibited culturally recognised signs of puberty (such as menstruation for females). Even the traditions which defined majority by age did so at a much lower age (the Jews celebrate bar-mitzvah at 13, for instance). How did 18 which, as far as I know, does not conform to any biological process become the universally recognised age of puberty?

In a historical documentary that I have been watching, there is constant mention of the idea that the spoked wheel faciliated advances in trade, warfare, and travel. However, the documentary does not explain why the spoked wheel did this. It's not the first time that I have heard a historian talk about the significance of the spoked wheel, so it would be great to get some clarification.

Something I just noticed in some admittedly very minimal research is that the Akkadian Empire and Old Kingdom Egypt both dissolved within a rather short time of each other, only about 40 years. Now Akkad was swept away by the Gutians and internal warfare while from what I can tell the collapse of the Old Kingdom was more of an internal issue with droughts and the like, but are these two things connected, and part of a greater sort of Bronze Age collapse? Seemingly it was not as bad as the collapse of the Late Bronze Age, but would this be called a collapse for the era in the first place or did these happenings mostly just affect the kingdoms themselves and they weren't indicitive of a greater known-world wide collapse of any sort.

If yes, then were there hostilities among the two groups? If not, what were the largest "identities" present on the subcontinent before the Raj?

In Antony Beever’s ‘Stalingrad - The Fateful Siege: 1942-1943’ he writes, “As early as the autumn of 1941, German Army Intelligence had come to the conclusion that the Wehrmacht could not possibly win in Russia unless it turned the invasion into another civil war.” Is this confirmed by any direct source or is the author supposing this?

I read this excerpt last night and was intrigued as I have never seen any reference to this before. Is this true? Was this conclusion passed on to the OBK? How was it received? I imagine the very nature of the idea conflicted with Hitler’s beliefs on the Slavs designated as sub-human and the idea of fighting alongside them was not what he envisioned as the goal of the ostfront.

Would I be better off as a poor family head in Venice, Genoa, or Pisa and have decent prospects of becoming comfortable through various opportunities for advancement, or through the non-Republican realms during this time period?

What would be some of my options to? I imagine trade, guilds, and such, but how would I even get into these?

Many negative myths about the corset are being countered by fashion historians, arguing mainly that the criticisms didn't come from women, but from men who looked down on women's financial independence. Most fashion houses were run by women, and it was women who dominated corset making, generating money for them. During the first feminist wave, doctors affirmed several things about the woman's body to try to show them as fragile and therefore they should stay at home. In addition to the corset, they campaigned against the use of bicycles, makeup, etc. Nowadays, we believe that these statements are ridiculous, but we still believe that the corset was a form of torture.

First wave feminists defended the use of the corset, but I see contemporary feminists condemning the use. It was anti-feminist propaganda that worked. However, how did this narrative become the opposite? From what I see in history, removing women's corsets was a form of male domination over women's bodies.

In this question I focus primarily on corsets for everyday use, and not the technique of tight lacing, but this is also something that many lies have been invented.

I wonder if you could recommend something, doesn't matter if it they're papers or books.

I'm specifically interested in the rise of Argentina in the late 19th century when it rivalled European nations and its subsequent decline. Atleast that's the popular narrative.

Thank you.

Ok, coming form Asia, it is really difficult to understand the basis of hating jewish people, who are integrated into the population of their countries so well and for so long that you can't superficially tell the difference between two groups.

One book I read (Lawrence of Arabia) chalks it up to the British literally not having considered alternatives. That seems rather simplistic and rather baffling that the British would fail to consider alternative landing locations. Elucidate matters, oh ye historians of Reddit.

I've been assigned a research paper about the devshirme system in the Ottoman Empire, and am supposed to analyze some primary sources. I have found three sources in an Ottoman Empire Sourcebook, however those were the only three that had to due with the devshirme system. Does anyone have any good databases or websites I could use to find additional sources? Not sure if this kind of question is allowed on this sub but I would greatly appreciate some advice.

In the small amount of searching I did I couldn't find a source for the claim in the question. So what I'm asking boils down to:

• Was that the consensus opinion of mid-19th century medical science?
• Was it a commonly held opinion, regardless of informed science?
• Was it a kooky belief of a few "doctors", akin to some modern "doctors" (not actual licensed medical professionals) promoting homeopathy?
• And if not, where does that claim come from?

I cant fact check this online, any attempt to google this results in the usual "slavery myths debunked" articles, but nothing specifically about this. For 'SOME REASON' im a little incredulous.

Can someone point me into the direction of some truth on this matter?

I'm obviously not criticizing Vietnam for stopping the Cambodian genocide, but isnt that kinda weird that they "betrayed" pol pot after he fought alongside them against the americans during the vietnam war?

Thanks

Welcome to Monday Methods, our weekly feature where we discuss methodological and theoretical approaches to history in their various iterations. Today's topic is topical for these time: Medical History.

Medical history is – broadly speaking – the study of past medical and health practices and how socieites in the past have dealt with diseases and illnesses. Medical history often faces the challenge of both medical practices and their vocabulary changing drastically as well as our idea of disease and illness evolving together with social change in general.

So, what are your experiences in doing or studying medical history? What challenge have you faced and what are the current trends and interests in the field? What kind of questions do you have for our experts who are well-versed in the subject of medical history?

I am someone who had become interested in the hobby of scale modelling after wondering about it for so long. But when miniature scale modelling started to become a major hobby in the 1950s after World War 2, how did former war veterens who had just returned home and where starting civillian life, react to miniature kit versions you could assemble, of the former enemies military vehicles they had bought fought and died against but years earlier?

I undestand as military vehicles got more bigger, developed, deadlier and dangerous, it was not just the enemy soldiers you feared & hated, but also their vehicles that supported them on the battlefield. Many vehicles in WW2 on both the Allied & the Axis sides where well known for their fearsome reputation such as the German Tiger Tank, Japanese Zero fighter plane (along with the kamikaze attacks), American Super-bombers, British Spitfires, that Russian six wheeled truck that fires rockets off its back that was known as the "Organ Of Death," and so on.

Veterans would have had time, and the rest of their civilian life afterward to reflect and deal with their horrific experiences that they experienced I am guessing, but how did it affect the military side of the scale modelling kit hobby? Let's say you're an American who fought in the Pacific or European theatre, and had to deal with said enemy vehicles you fought against. Your son, with his own allowance buys a model kit he likes the look off be it an airplane, tank or other vehicle the axis used your father fought against.

Your father finds out. Does he just accept its just a model and the past is the past, and the on has the freedom to model a former enemies military hardware? Does he react out of anger and demands to know why he didn't want to model the winning side, tells him to return it or though it out and that he fought for the freedom that they enjoy? What if the Axis won? Does your son buying the model trigger further nightmares and periods of PTSD?

I know that people didn't drop dead at 35. It's easy to debunk that myth: all you have to do is research the ages of historical figures. Isocrates, for example, (436 BC–338 BC) lived to age 98. But how many people actually lived to an old age? What percentage lived to 75 and older?

I'm a couch-historian and interested in all things history. But I've found reading historical texts or books about historical subjects difficult, because I feel like I have a lack of skills or knowledge when reading these kinds of books. I am able to understand a lot of what I read, but I need a structured way to look at these texts to improve my research of historical topics.

Do historians keep a certain framework in mind when studying historical texts or books? For example, politics, economy, culture, geography etc.

Hi, I'm currently a PhD student in theoretical physics, but unsure if whether I want to stick at it, for a few reasons, one of which is that I have come to find history (generally, but with a particular interest in history of physics) far more interesting and important, and I'm wondering how plausible an application I could make to history of science Master's programmes. I got good grades in my Bachelor's and Master's in physics at a top university, and did do a History of Physics "short course", which I did well in, but as a paper specifically for physicists I'm not sure how impressive that is. Otherwise I haven't studied history in an official sense since I was 18.

How common and how viable is it for people to move from physics to history of science? What would applications committees be looking for in someone like me if I did try to follow this path? Thanks.