My master has had it conveyed to me that I am to do manual labor and various servile tasks about his city house. I've acted docile to make my master think I'll be a cooperative house slave, but mostly to avoid being sent to a mine or out to a farm where I'll be worked to death. When my master brings me home, how wary is he of the threat I might pose to him? Will he lock me up until I've proven myself to be docile, or will it be assumed that I've surrendered my will to be free? Will he worry that I might bash his head in while he sleeps, or harm his family? Does he take precautions to keep me in check?

The idea of going out to eat is pretty ingrained in modern culture. When did this practice really begin? The idea of going to a restaurant, being waited on, ordering appetizers and a main course. Before this system as we know it today, in what capacity did people go outside of their homes to get a meal?

Edit: little side caveat I visited Stiftskeller St. Peter, in Salzburg a few months ago which is claimed to be the oldest (noncontinuous) restaurant in the world. I’m assuming these inns are what predate modern restaurant culture but I would love more information about them

What was the situation like between the USSR baltic fleet and the German fleet? Were there any significant battles, what consequences did the supremacy of the German navy have towards the conflict fought on the land?

Of course we all understand the moral and ethical horror, I’m simply trying to understand what the Nazi government would be looking at when deciding to continue on with its program of exterminating people.

After huge reversals in Russia and the emanate allied invasion ramping up, why did the Nazi hierarchy continue to allocate man power, money, and resources into the rounding up and slaughter of innocents?

I understand that slave labor was a thing, but (in my understanding) the slave labor output really didn’t justify the expense of building camps and supplying them with officers, security, rations, fuel, administration, and everything else that these camps required. How does this make economic sense?

Worlds Fairs were once the kind of thing that could be seen as potentially bettering the future of your city simply by managing to win the bid to hold one, kind of like the Olympics. We still hear all about the Olympics each and every game, but while Worlds Fairs are still going on, they don't seem to get much attention at all. So what happened exactly? Why do we pay less attention to them, in a time when the world is more globalized than ever?

I am also curious if they took time to reach the popularity they had in the era they were giving us things like the Eiffel Tower and the Ferris Wheel in, or were they well received from early on?

The common line on EC comics is that they're entertaining, if tasteless horror tales of ironic revenge, whose primary claim to fame is being the target of a moral panic partly inflamed by Frederic Wertham's 'Seduction of the Innocent", which linked crime and horror comics to juvenile deliquency, and made Bill Gaines into a free speech icon.

Yet, the comics are rarely mentioned for their consistently open and progressive social content. The EC comics consistently take a line against racism and bigotry ("Judgment Day","The Teacher from Mars","The Meddlers"), consistently highlight due process ("The Guilty","The Confession","The Confidant") and against mob violence and lynching ("Under Cover","The Whipping","The Assualt"). They also show pretty blatant disdain for their critics - see "The Reformers" by Joe Orlando, or Wally Wood's pre - structuralist anti Suburban hypocrisy fable "So Shall Ye Reap". They also broached some very controversial subjects like the death penalty ("The Execution") and the Holocaust ("Master Race")

Despite their fantasy and horror format, their messages don't normally take the form of hidden allegory - they're always detectable and (especially in their ShockSuspense label) often accompanied by editorial comment.

Given their popularity, why were these messages not debated more (as opposed to in internal processes from higher up which tried to change Judgment Day's ending)? Was there already a public perception that these were more than simple shockers? And have you historians gleaned any value from examining the "unacceptable" art of the 50's?

From what I've read it seems as if the entirety of the reconquista was left up to the Kingdom of Asturias. The Moors would certainly have been seen as a threat especially to the Franks, but did they just not care after Charles Martel pushed them back over the Pyrenees? I feel like other European kingdoms would have been more concerned with the caliphate conquering Spain, but as far as I'm aware it was the Spanish Kings who took it back themselves. Any clarification would be great thanks!

I find WWII quite fascinating, and pretty much all I know cames from documentaries, YouTube videos, and Wikipedia. Yet, these means of information must lie upon some sort of source. How do I find these sources, and how do I know if they are reliable?

in the novel I'm listening to there's a bit where the Romans takeover a Greek town and start sacking it. There's a bit where the main character gets mad at his comrades for gang raping a 13 year old girl.

Is it anachronistic to have a 199 BC roman care about that?

I have recently started to look up on the designation numbers of Ju-52 planes during WWII and saw that individual planes are named like "Junkers Ju-52/3m TG+ES, W.Nr. 7279, 6./TG 3". I have understood the meaning of every part except TG+ES part. Anyone knows what those numbers and letters mean?

I can see why it ended in Persia, Central Asia, Iraq and Anatolia, but why couldn't Egypt preserve the achievements made by the Islamic World in the Middle Ages.

With the sailing technology, navigational techniques and trade winds, would it have been possible? Was there a particular point in time when Polynesians had settled the islands but chose to abandon them? Is there any credible archeological indicate which may prove this?

Made a post to r/vexillologycirclejerk a few weeks ago after discovering that the flag of Kashubia is just the flag of the Habsburg monarchy. What connection, if any, do the two flags share?

Can anyone point me at some reasonably easily digested, accurate materials on the subject? I'd particularly enjoy some good quality documentary style videos or podcasts. Thanks!

Hello and thank you for reading. As mentioned, I am thinking about a possible historian career and had some questions. I am quite passionate about history and have been for as long as I can remember, and as such wanted to be involved in it somehow. Helping me out would be greatly appreciated.

1. Right now I'm looking into the education field. In your view, what are the biggest pros/cons with educational jobs, and what alternatives would you recommend?

2. If I train to be a teacher in college but decide not to, would I have trouble getting a job outside of education? (Would my history diploma be seen differently as opposed to someone who didn't train to be a teacher)

3. What can I do right now to help in this goal? Is there any resources save reading this sub and researching stuff that interests me?

Thank you so much. By answering you are really helping me out.

So I’m American and got a decent education on the US Civil War and currently listening to the Civil War Podcast but want to read a civil war book as well. If I had to pick just one book about the whole war, which would be the best? Are Shelby Footes volumes the best option? I heard good things about them

More specifically I'm interested in learning about the early colonies, and the subsequent American nation, in particular, the wars and political decisions that led to independence.

​

"Serious" herein meaning more depth than a simple look at the overall situation. I have plenty of books that talk about what happened at Lexington and Concord, but very few bother to detail why it happened, what led up to it, etc.

​

I suppose this is a general question for best reading material about US History in general, with a focus on pre-civil war.