Hello, I just wanted to ask if horses were bread differently back during olden times when a horse needed to be strong rather than fast and graceful. I remover a professor telling me that horse were bread for strength and stamina rather than speed and grace. If this is true are there places you can see what older horses would look like? Do they still breed them for strength somewhere in the world? Sorry about the vague question.

Self explanatory.

I was watching the movie yesterday and in the beggining, when you see the First Class boarding, you see a woman holding dogs with a leash, and that got me thinking:

What do we know about those dogs? Where were they kept (with the passengers or in a designated area)? Where would they "go for a walk" and who was in charge of it? How many dogs were on the ship?

When the ship was sinking, were they allowed in the lifeboats? If not, did any survive? What happened to them once the order of evacuation was given, were they released to run freely around?

I have been wanting to learn Chinese history and with the stay-at-home order, now's the perfect time to start. I already have a good understanding from the fall of the Qing dynasty onward, and I figure I should work backwards considering the sheer amount of history in China. So I'm wondering if anyone has any good books on the history of the Qing dynasty.

This anecdote get brought up all the time whenever conquistadors or meso-americans get mentioned.

I don't know much about meso-american history, but it's quite known that the Spaniards used all sort of propaganda in their narratives as a way to justify the conversion to Christianity of the New World's inhabitants.

And after reading my lot of ancient historical records on different places, events and peoples, I've came to notice that, no matter what culture they are from, the historians and authors of these accounts tend to be a teeny tiny little bit biased in their writings. Sometimes changing or adding elements out of nowhere to convey how great is whatever they place on a pedestal (an ideology, religion, culture, empire, king, etc.).

So I'm a little bit skeptical of that missionary Bernardino de Sahagún who translated the Aztecs' perspective on their first encounter with foreigners they mistook for being gods. Some parts of his narratives seemed believable, others... quite doubtful.

I can give credit to his work for being perhaps true to some extent since he describes only the Aztec king Moctezuma thinking of the Spaniards as gods, while the Aztec people, at large, didn't bought it. But I'm still not sure about that "gods" myth... The very fact that it was constantly repeated and perpetuated by the conquistadors referring to themselves as "gods" makes it all the harder to believe. Especially seeing how other natives treated Spaniards and the more down-to-earth view they had of them.

What was his sources and how did he translate the viewpoint of the Aztec perspective ? Did the Aztecs even have a script for Nahuatl to translate from ? How reliable were his translations ? How objective and unbiased were his accounts ? To what extent do modern historians agree he was a reliable source ?

Thanks in advance !

Gay relations between boys and between men and boys seem to be a recurring theme (although almost always in a negative light). There's also lots of talk about the feminity of the main character, Pao Yu. I've always thought of imperial China as intensely conservative on LGBT issues. Is this an unusual feature of the work, or was it fairly common to discuss gay relationships, or queerness more broadly, amoung Qing aristocrats?

Some quotes (an old translation by Florence and Isabel McHugh, from the German by Dr. Franz Kuhn)

"The twenty year old was by nature averse to women, and preffered the companionship of men." (Ch. 5)

"When he heard for the first time of the existence of this school, in which there was such a choice selection of young boys, this news at once awakened base desires in him." (Ch. 7)

"His extraordinary close relationship with Chia Yung, the prince's son, had caused suspicious whispering and comments amoung the servants...in order to save the house from disrepute, the prince had recently decided to have his foster son live outside the Ningkuo house." (Ch. 7)

Sorry for the Wade-Giles transliterations and for any typos- I'm on mobile. Thank you!!

In the Victorian Era if a lady (non noble) married a common man would his title Mr. be changed? If so what would it be?

Would the title be "most honoured"? I don't think they would be called Lord seeing as it's an honourary title.

(This is somewhat of a repost seeing as the question must not have been posed correctly for this sub)

To my knowledge of ancient chinese history, it seems that various Chinese kingdoms were only interested in conquering other chinese kingdoms and fending off the Mongolians.

When the Qin Dynasty unified China, why didn’t they (or any other kingdom/dynasties) expand southward to modern day Laos/ Myanmar/ Thailand?

I understand the chinese civilisation was blinded by Mongolians in the north, South China Sea in the east, and the Himalayas and India in the west. I’m curious why they didn’t expand southwards.

​

So I've been wondering about the English Reformation. It's like a real life drama play, lots of twists and turns, and it's confusing me.

The Acts of Supremacy declared that Henry VIII would be appointed as the head of the Church of England, thus bypassing the powers of the Pope in the Vatican, granting Henry VIII total power over all Christendom in England.

It is said that Henry passed this law because he wanted to divorce his wife in order to marry someone else, but the pope refused(citing canon law I think) to grant such an annulment. Henry Needed an Heir, because his wife apparently couldn't provide for him. Thus, the acts of supremacy were born.

So was it justifiable? I ask this without any vitriol, pure genuine curiosity here.

• Is it true that once Henry VIII took control, he closed hundreds of abbeys, friaries, and diverted all their funds to fund his war against Spain?
• What was the Pope like, was the church corrupt at all at this point in the 1530's?
• Why didn't the Pope call for a Crusade against England?
• How did the rest of Europe react to this news? Did they even react?

Seriously, just wondering. This is interesting stuff in my opinion.

I am currently doing a project on the Estonian War of Independence and specifically the contribution of the British Baltic Fleet which was there between 1918-1920. I mention that as, I'm aware it's a rather small window and minor event shortly after WWI ended and consequently I'm struggling to find primary sources concerning it. I am a current university student so have access to websites such as JSTOR through my university's subscription to these data bases. Any recommendations for places to look or perhaps even sources would be greatly appreciated.

Hello everyone!

I have read through a good chunk of "American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer", in which, if I recall correctly, the very beginning of the book makes reference to how much of a serious blow the loss of his security clearance was to Oppenheimer. Additionally, I have seen several interviews with Freeman Dyson, Hans Bethe, and possibly Paul Dirac, (not sure how known these people are outside of the Physics community) that also speak of these security hearings as if the mere fact that they were happening was a huge blow to the physics, or in general the scientific, community.

My question for you all is, why were these hearings so significant? Reading in between the lines, what did they really mean? I suspect the hearing probably had to do a bit with McCarthyism seeing as, from what I have read, Oppenheimer was involved with the communist party here in the U.S.. However, as embarrassing as it may be, I am really not certain as to why the hearings were such a big deal or what the fact that they were happening/ended in the way that they did really meant in a deeper sort of sense. I feel like maybe some statement was made that I am not seeing.

Any explanations that you could be provided would be greatly appreciated! Stay safe everyone!

I've read that they managed to convert a significant chunk of Ukraine into a mostly-anarchic society for a couple years, but I can't seem to find much information about whether or not it actually worked very well there, compared to the systems it replaced and then was in turn replaced by.

I have come across a couple of individuals of Quora who have made the claim that the Crimean Khans were considered a reserve dynasty by the Ottomans who would rule if the Ottoman dynasty ceased to exist. Was this actually so? If so was it actually a legal thing or just an idea that was suggested? Was a reserve dynasty a thing that any other states had?

From what I can tell, the general consensus is that Rome is "still the same city" from the ancient days of the Roman Empire and Republic. It was sacked multiple times, and most of its ancient buildings no longer stand, but Rome has a continuous history.

As a contrasting example, Tenochtitlan apparently no longer exists. Its Wikipedia page begins "Tenochtitlan was a large Mexica altepetl...", and popular consensus is that it was destroyed and that Mexico City was built upon its ruins. However, even though Cortés razed the inner city, there seems to be a fair bit of continuity, and apparently the name Tenochtitlan continued to be used by the Spanish for some time.

How different are these situations really? If I were to say that Mexico City is Tenochtitlan, would I be wrong?

Considering that factories required railways to transport materials in and out of them, what came first? Were the factories first, because then there was an economic incentive to build a railway to that area or was it the railway that suddenly allowed the condition for a factory to be opened?

I'm fascinated with what they could have looked like.

Hi everyone,

Is there a real reason for that? Why French are continually made fun off on most of the war related topics?