Questions:

1. Did brothels exist during this time period? Whether they were open to the public or covert
2. Were bottle shops around? How did people (specifically Russians) buy alcohol
3. Were there breakfast buffets in hotels? I assume that there would be but I just want to be sure
4. What were some of the trains like? If there are some sort of model that I can look up that would be great

The HRE had a very unique system of hereditary electors voting for emperor, how did this come to be?

What the title said, I read many books and stories when they said in older times, multiples would bring about misfortune. This belief didnt exist in my country so I'm curious about whether this was true or not. And how did people came to believe so?

I realize this may be a strange type of question for this subreddit, but I wasn't really able to find much else yet online, so I figured historians may be best equipped to answer my question of where to find historians.

For context: I am a board game designer and am looking to design a game on a specific time period and area. While I can do all the research I want on my own of the subject, I want this game to be particularly accurate/intricate with its details and figure hiring some sort of subject matter expert/historian would be the best option. Where do time period films find their experts?

Are there any resources or avenues I can look into to finding a historian to work with (on a particular historical subject)?

I'm looking for the political and military history about the war. It's a war I'm not too familiar with and it seems like a key event in understanding how the Middle East became what it is today. Thanks in advance for any recommendations.

Suggested readings about revolutionary movements, especially ones with theories of underlying principals are welcome!

[deleted]

Hello , i want to read about Canadian history, through Pierre berton books , do you advise me to read them , coming from someone who reads big history , but doesn't know anything about Canadian history.

Thank you

I understand that the Ottoman Empire lasted a very long time, so this probably changed over time, but in general did the Kurds living in the Ottoman Empire face discrimination or bigotry, or were they treated more or less equally to the Turks?

I do understand the basic historical facts around the Peloponesian War but there are two points about it that I can't wrap my head around:

(1) How bad was the situation in Athens in order for the Spartans to react as they did? Simply from a commonsensical point of view, starting a brutal, bloody war with a different tribe from the same land as yours sounds like a stupid idea in any case and I don't think it has happened at any time before in history, so the incentives for it must have been massive. All the textbooks I have read seem to downplay it. Maybe I am not thinking Greek enough, but "one city which suffered the most in the war with Persia taking taxes from other cities in order to compensate" doesn't sound as a justified enough reason to start a civilization-ending war.

Relating to that, Socrates' death also seems way over the top. From what I've read, it seems like Socrates was killed primarily because Athenians thought he was glorifying Sparta and thus endangering their city. How could they have been so scared of Sparta that they killed off a random bum simply because of his blabbering?

(2) Also, how bad was the Spartan victory if it managed to end all Greek intellectual and cultural activity virtually "overnight"? With the exception of Aristotle, Greek philosophy suddenly comes to a stop after a few centuries of continuous evolution, and there is literally no extant Greek poetry from the fourth century BC onwards (maybe it's just lost?). It cannot be explained by the degradation of Athens, because philosophers and poets were very active outside of the Delian league, especially in Asia Minor and Magna Graeca. What the fuck did the Spartans do in order to single-handedly extinguish all that? In this case it also seems like the textbooks are downplaying it because it seems like the Athenians suffered their punishments and things continued to flow like they did before, while the cultural rift indicates that something HUGE must have happened.

[deleted]

I'm a student who's thinking of doing my project on the Punic Wars. I need opposing sources so I can do the subject.

I've been in a bit of a scuff with the r/history discord mods over what the 20 year rule means in the context of historiography. I think historiography is a vital part of history that it's necessary to address the ways which modern politics plays a role in our narratives. I'll include the relevant part of my response to their linking of the 20 year rule below because I think I fleshed out my reasoning behind my thinking reasonably well, but it's not necessary to read to answer my question, which is this: Don't historians in an academic setting constantly have to address contemporary political settings to understand why we understand events a certain way? I do want to know where that line is and I admit, if I were in charge of moderating a discussion on historiography I wouldn't know where to draw the line myself. Is there any uniform way this problem is addressed by journals or in reviewing peers or any general guidelines? Is the 20 year rule still generally used in the context of historiography?

​

"I understand the basis for the twenty year rule and even in the academic history community, I think that's generally accepted best practice, but I think what I'm saying does not apply to that. I think that's a very incorrect understanding of that rule. I'm not asking to be able to talk specifically about events going on right now. I'm not asking to be able to say "Look at Hong Kong now, this is why it's like that", for more reasons than I wouldn't be able to actually answer that. I just think that without the ability to even note how modern political perceptions impact the way we discuss historical events, it isn't really history. The example that continues to remain at the front of my mind is Madeline Hsu's 2003 critique of almost all historical accounts of Chinese sojourners ignoring homosociality in Chinese American history. Chinese sojourners were almost all male, living in closely knit, all-male communities for years and decades without seeing their wives or children. The need historians felt to continuously place these men in the context of hetero-normative, traditional families was one that reflected a society that hid non-traditional family forms in the early 1900s but even more reflected a society that continued to deal with non-traditional families by waving their differences away and saying they continued to *actually* exist in our comfortable view of the family as it exists today. It was political of her to say that, and it was political of her to question our motives in our analyses, but it gave a new, more accurate narrative to discuss the reality faced by these men. It would have been political for her to not say what she did. It wasn't soap-boxing, it was acknowledging how modern politics impacted our approach to a historical narrative."

Why not choose a Greek over a Non-Greek

I’ve found some info on man-manned turrets of US planes like the B-17 or B-24 and their kill ratios (though not much). But I cannot find anything about how effective the early computers of the B-29 were. I know that the turrets were rapidly obsolete with the near instant advancement of tech in the later years of the war and shortly afterwards, but I’m curious about how effective they were late in the war when still relevant.

Historians of reddit, how effective were those early targeting computers on the B-29?

[deleted]

I am thinking that 'car' probably came from carriage, but what about BUS, TRUCK, CAB, TRACTOR etc.?

The quote in the question is a paraphrase of the physicist Max Planck's statement:

Eine neue wissenschaftliche Wahrheit pflegt sich nicht in der Weise durchzusetzen, daß ihre Gegner überzeugt werden und sich als belehrt erklären, sondern vielmehr dadurch, daß ihre Gegner allmählich aussterben und daß die heranwachsende Generation von vornherein mit der Wahrheit vertraut gemacht ist.

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

Was he right, with regards to major paradigm shifts in the mid 19th to late 20th centuries? I'm specifically thinking about Planck's own field of theoretical physics, as well evolutionary biology (Darwinian evolution vs. competing models, the Recent African Origin model of human evolution, the abandonment of hereditary telegony, etc.), anthropology, and linguistics (UG vs competing models). Did modern accepted theories "win over" scientists from competing models, or did the old models' advocates just die?

I'm also concerned solely with the transmission and acceptance of scientific models among scientists themselves, not popular culture responses to scientific theories.

Thank you!

I recently heard that certain Nazis were hidden and protected from persecution by Pinochet during his rule of Chile. I couldn't find a lot of information about this on Wikipedia so I was wondering if anybody had an answer here for the extent to which Nazis were protected by Pinochet and allowed to continue murderous/torturous operations, or if such acts extended back to previous Chilean administration under leaders such as Allende. And if so, were such acts committed by Nazis connected to Pinochet's death squads/leftists that the Pinochet administration targeted?