Did they flee? If they were out of the Netherlands that day, did they return? Were they ordered back? What about other transportation modalities like shipping or trains?
1 Answers 2019-09-16
1 Answers 2019-09-16
My mum recently commissioned a family tree of one side of the family reaching back until the early 1800's. There's a load of interesting sounding professions listed under individual people's census entries, such as the ones mentioned above. I'd be really interested to know anything about these professions, what they entailed, how professional or well paid they might have been - basically any sort of context or background. (I'm also not precious about this being my ancestry, so don't worry if these are unpleasant professions!)
Thanks in advance
2 Answers 2019-09-16
Hello all:
I'm working on a project about the 1932-35 Chaco War between Bolivia and Paraguay. Among the reasons for the war, it seems that the most agreed-upon one was Bolivia's desire for access to the Paraguay River in order for it to move commerce (specifically oil and gas) via the Paraná River to the Atlantic Coast. But Bolivia already was established in the northern Chaco region, where Puerto Suárez and Puerto Quijarro sat on the Paraguay River, just across from the Brazilian city of Corumbá. (There's even a port there today, Puerto Jennefer, on the Tamengo Canal b/t Suárez and Quijarro, that has access to the Paraguay River.)
Why on earth did Bolivia need to possess the Chaco region to gain access to the Paraguay River if it already had access to it in its back yard? Today, there are enormous barges plying the waters from Corumbá/P. Suárez/P. Quijarra to points south. Was it not as navigable back in the 1930s?
Another question:
Contrary to past popular opinion, it's now widely discounted that Standard Oil (on the Bolivian side) and Royal Dutch Shell (on the Paraguayan side) were puppetmasters behind each country's entry into the war, yet I still see some contemporary accounts suggesting that these oil companies held some sway in pushing for war. (In fact, Standard Oil and Bolivia had severely strained relations during the war, and Bolivia kicked the company out of the country shortly after the war concluded.) Is there any evidence that Standard and/or Shell pushed for the conflict because of imagined (yet ultimately nonexistent) oil/gas reserves in the Chaco?
Any links to sources would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks in advance!
1 Answers 2019-09-16
Houses would only be built entirely out of wood if it was in an area where wood was plentiful. Otherwise other materials like bricks were used for walls.
However, as far as I know wood beams or trusses were the most widely used material for supporting roofs before steel beams and trusses became an option. There were other options like arches or vaults, which were intersecting arches, but those took up a lot of space.
How were the wooden pieces joined together without iron nails?
1 Answers 2019-09-16
https://i.imgur.com/iqkktLm.jpg
This came across my TV screen last night while watching Origins on Netflix and with a reverse image search I can only find it as a funny pic in a few articles detailing middle ages medical procedures. None actually discuss what's in this picture and I can't figure it out!
2 Answers 2019-09-16
1 Answers 2019-09-16
I was on this random Wikipedia page and saw something cool.
"It was a secret town in the Soviet Union until President Boris Yeltsin decreed in 1992 that such places could use their historical names."
I've never heard of a secret town before so I did some Googling and this article is all I could find.
I would love to more know about secret towns. Did other countries have them? How did they keep them secret?
2 Answers 2019-09-16
It makes little sense to me that the Roman Empire had their lorica segmantatas but in 13th century Europe they were still using mail despite armour made of metal plates existing a thousand years earlier
1 Answers 2019-09-16
Saudi seems to have a very religiously conservative culture which seems opposed to western values.
We are also closely allied with Israel.
We are the top two oil producers which would make me think competitors.
I’ve read that like FDR stopped there after WWII, is that how it started and how has it persisted?
2 Answers 2019-09-16
2 Answers 2019-09-16
Did any of the marketing of the movie indicate that the movie would be in color?
1 Answers 2019-09-16
To start, the Civil War was obviously about slavery, but why is saying that it was (at least in part) about states' rights so wrong? How was the Civil War not a fight for a states' right to slavery? Moreover, how can we not call it the War of Northern Aggression when it was undeniably the North who provoked the war- in other words, wasn't it the South's right to retract itself from the social contract of the Constitution? Locke's theory (which the Constitution was based upon) requires members of society to consent to be a part of the state. By seceding, was the South not just exercising their natural right to withdraw consent?
I'm not justifying slavery, nor do I condone what the South did, but I don't understand why we should automatically toss away a seemingly valid legal and philosophical opinion.
1 Answers 2019-09-16
Before diving into the expenditures of the HRE, please answer if the expenditures of the HRE was separate from the coffers of Austria or if they were all lumped into one account since they had been held close together for quite some time.
1 Answers 2019-09-16
Hello, everyone! For those of you just joining us, here's a summary of the recently retooled Media Monday feature, lifted from /u/Valkine's excellent installment last week:
"The media in question will now be picked by an expert flair who will lead the conversation with a top-down expert post. This guarantees that we get at least one amazing post for each submission, and leaves nobody bored - if they wanna post, all they need do is ask.
We will also try to do a new topic each week (so long as we have experts free and willing to write them), everyone is free to ask questions in the comments, and anyone can write their own expert comments (so long as they meet AH standards)."
Today’s discussion starter is on what historian Antony Beevor called histo-tainment, and no one has shaped this genre on film in the last 20 years to the extent of Michael Hirst. Hirst’s screenwriting credits include some of the biggest historical blockbusters in recent memory, from big budget films like Elizabeth (1998) and its sequel Elizabeth: The Golden Age (2009), the recent Mary, Queen of Scots (2018), to cable shows such as The Tudors (2007-2011), The Borgias, (2011-2013), and Vikings (2013 - ) (which I will allow my esteemed colleague /u/Steelcan909 to elaborate on in the comments, as it’s about 500 years out of my historical wheelhouse). To put it bluntly, one cannot talk about contemporary historical film and television without invoking Hirst’s name.
On the one hand, the average consumer of film seems to look favorably on Hirst’s offerings – he presents the viewer with lush visuals and characters that are perpetually young and good looking and always D.T.F. What is abundantly evident is that he is not overly concerned with presenting historical fact, and even admitted that as a screenwriter of historical film and television, “you get to the truth by telling a little lie.” On the other hand, this same quality is what will prompt a barrage of invectives from both respected academics and amateur historians alike with the mere mention of his name. Media darling and historian David Starkey, himself no stranger to lubing up history when he feels it’s verging on becoming too dry, once famously attacked Hirst for “getting history wrong for no purpose.”
Hirst’s supporters are usually swift to argue that Hirst allows easy access to history for the average person; and indeed, may even spark an interest in history that would not otherwise have been kindled. Hirst himself seems to enjoy pointing out the volume of positive feedback he receives from “school teachers” in particular who laud him for inspiring their students to engage with history. That said, the resounding response from within academia has been to shout back, “But you’re getting it all wrong!” The way that history is traditionally taught to Western school children seems to be a constant push and pull of “boring memorization of names and dates” versus “engaging stories about the human condition across the scope of time”, and the value of including film and television viewing into the curriculum cannot be overstated.
However, allowing one man to shape our understanding of history, by dint of his ability to be on every television with a subscription to Showtime, is placing too much power in the hands of one person who’s agenda is not necessarily altruistic.
There are other problems within Hirst’s scope of history that should be addressed: his treatment of female characters, for instance. In both Elizabeth films, as well as the recent Mary, Queen of Scots (2018), Hirst centers his story on the archetype of the English Virgin Queen versus the sexually awakened Scottish queen – the saintly woman versus the sexual woman. In Elizabeth, Cate Blanchet’s Elizabeth is at first rendered vulnerable by her emotional attachment to Lord Dudley (played by the pouty-lipped Joseph Fiennes at the height of his career as leading man), and then conquers her feminine desires to become the stoic embodiment of impenetrable, perpetual sexual unavailability. This, of course, is not new territory and at least in the earlier film, Hirst sticks to the well-trod path of conventional Elizabethan scholarship (Elizabeth: The Golden Age is more concerned with Elizabeth-as-warrior-Queen). However, in Mary, Queen of Scots, we see Margot Robbie’s Elizabeth, disfigured by smallpox and rendered mad by her decision to deny herself sexual release, becoming obsessed with the sexuality of her Scottish rival, Mary (played by Saoirse Ronan). The subtext is that a woman is only defined as a woman by her proximity to a man. The closer the proximity (ideally, involving penetration), the more truly whole she is. Even if she does end up getting her head chopped off.
We see this played out in a broader sense in The Tudors and The Borgias, where female characters are introduced as potential lovers/wives to the central male figures, and the dramatic tension that ensues in both shows relies on pitting the women against one another for access to the royal penis. Meanwhile, the men in question are perfectly content to accept as much sex as possible from wherever the source, all while contemplating the weighty issues they are called upon by God to deal with.
While history is steeped in sex, it is not the sole motivating factor behind every decisive action made by its actors. Henry VIII needed a male heir to cement his lineage; however, this single view of what resulted in the Reformation leaves out the even bigger motivating factor of money. Henry was readily persuaded to dissolve the monasteries and pocket the riches, and of course keep trying for that male heir, but an England untethered to the Church meant a whole lot more material wealth and political power for him in the immediate sense. For someone who was deeply concerned with establishing the legitimacy of the budding Tudor dynasty, that counted for quite a bit. Couple that with an historical record that suggests that Henry tended towards prudish (he only had two confirmed mistresses amongst his many wives, and seemed to shy away from outwardly bawdy behavior), the shag-fest depicted in The Tudors immediately renders it nearly unwatchable for anyone with a basic understanding of the man’s life and the Tudor court in general. About the only thing I cannot take total issue with is The Tudor’s treatment of the early stage of Henry’s infatuation with Anne Boleyn, which was by all accounts all-consuming for the King. All the sex, however… not so much; Hirst eventually cops to this, admitting “we probably had a little too much sex in the beginning.”. The aim, he goes on, was to “grab an audience and say 'Hey, don't be frightened of this. You might actually get to like this stuff once you've overcome your initial prejudice to historical material.'” Understandable from an entertainment standpoint, but with the inaccuracies piling up in favor of including as much sex as possible to counteract any potential disinterest in the show (and resulting loss of revenue), the end result barely resembled the history it purported to portray.
And therein is the fundamental problem of Michael Hirst and his view of history as fungible, switching out fact in favor of juicer fiction. As a tool of the entertainment industry, Hirst is not burdened by a need to adhere faithfully to history. However, as Beevor points out, the modern entertainment complex is obsessed with presenting its version of history precisely as fact: “Historical truth and the marketing needs of the movie and television industry remain fundamentally incompatible. Hollywood's compulsion to claim that a film is somehow true, even when almost completely fictional, is a comparatively new development. The false impression of verisimilitude is bolstered from time to time by throwing places and specific dates on the screen, as if the audience is really about to see a faithful re-enactment of what happened on a particular day.”
I will end this by throwing this debate to you, dear readers:
The average consumer of Hirst’s shows may not see histo-tainment as a particularly dangerous path to tread, as what possible effect could these “little lies” of Hirst’s have on their day-to-day existence? And doesn’t the argument surrounding histo-tainment in general amount to academic gatekeeping if academics are so obsessed with making sure they alone control the narrative of history? If The Tudors inspires at least a few people to pick up a biography and learn something, hasn’t Hirst scored one for Team History?
Sources:
Antony Beevor: Real Concerns, accessed September 15, 2019.
“I could hear their voices.” Michael Hirst on Vikings, accessed September 15, 2019.
Reddit AMA with Michael Hirst, accessed September 15, 2019.
Entertainmentwise chats with ‘TheTudors’ Michael Hirst, accessed September 15, 2019.
The Tudors: This time it’s political, BBC History Magazine via Archive.org, accessed September 15, 2019.
BBC period drama The Tudors is 'gratuitously awful' says Dr David Starkey, The Telegraph, accessed September 15, 2019.
Michael Hirst: The Tudors, Broadcastnow.co.uk, via the Archive.org, accessed September 15, 2019.
Saorise Ronan is ‘Mary, Queen of Scots’ in ‘Elizabeth’ Writer Michael Hirst’s New Film, accessed September 15, 2019.
Interview with Michael Hirst (Creator of Vikings), accessed September 15, 2019.
5 Answers 2019-09-16
Such as ideas of racial superiority? Did the Americans ever attempt to show the Japanese footage of the Holocaust?
1 Answers 2019-09-16
1 Answers 2019-09-16
Was scalping common in NA? Or was it limited to a few tribes and or a brief period of time?
2 Answers 2019-09-16
With disease and death so common in Victorian England, I feel like this situation might've arisen quite a lot. So if a woman's parents and brothers passed away, who would gain control over her? Would she actually inherit if there were no close male relatives? Or could, say, a second-cousin-twice-removed swoop in and take 'control' over her life, so to speak?
Edit: That is to say, an unmarried woman, obviously.
1 Answers 2019-09-16
For example, here's the in-game text that pops up when Theravada Buddhism is "harmonized":
The Pali Cannons of Theravada Buddhism are in many ways a familiar way to organize tradition and learning to our Confucian elites. Over time these collections of laws and rites have come to be studied and made part of the corpus that every educated and influential member of our society must study and adhere to. The tradition have been harmonized and the wider Theravada Buddhist community consider us their equal just as we consider the Theravada Buddhists within our borders as an integral part of our monarchy.
and when Islam is "harmonized":
Islam has been a minority religion for centuries in our lands and was so not a new religion to us when we first became the overlord of the people of Kutai. Over time however it has grown into a more and more integrated part of our society. Muslim ideals have been integrated and harmonized with our traditions, rites and methods and we have taken the best of what the religion has had to offer to mould to our own uses. Islamic scholars, doctors, merchants, farmers and peasants can be found even in the districts around Beijing. As long as they bend the knee to our king, the followers of Allah are an integral part of our society.
I know various belief systems such as Benzhuism or Manichaeism (as it entered China) became influenced by Chinese folk religion, but I believe that has more to do with being influenced by their location, rather than any state-supported attempts to integrate them.
With that being said, was there any precedent behind a Confucian ruler trying to officially integrate these religions in such a manner as to incorporate their rituals, traditions, and even religious texts?
1 Answers 2019-09-16
I read that in 1665 the Duke's Law made denying the "true God" punishable by death in New York. Would someone suspected of this receive a trial? Would it be public, or fair? If they were found guilty, what would be the method of execution? Was execution always the punishment?
1 Answers 2019-09-16
I wish to say quickly, I have nothing against them. but when I look at them compared to, say, Africa or America, I don't really see why these isles/subcontinent were so considered good to colonize and keep pushing in, especially when Australia is literally trying to kill everyone
1 Answers 2019-09-16
Eli Cohen was killed in 1965 and the Six Day War commenced in 1967. Two years feels like an appreciable gap for gathered intelligence to have dated.
1 Answers 2019-09-16
