Why didn't he tell people about Alexis' illness?

It'd have explained to people why Rasputin was still around.

It was not the only time that the tsar would keep vital information to himself such as when he sacked a minister that hated Rasputin following an infamous incident in which Rasputin slandered the Tsaritsa and exposed himself. It looked to all the world that the man was fired because of Rasputin but that was not the case and Nicholas could have easily dispelled the rumours but chose not to. Why not?

Sorry for the roughness of this post, it is my first. What kind of math (if any) is required as a History major at college in the United States? Would it depend on the school? I want to major in History and become a History teacher, however, I am terrible at math... I would like to take the easiest math course available if I even need it. I cannot find any information on this, so I resorted to Reddit. Any information possible will help. What other classes are usually required? Some info: I go to a community college in Florida and my major as of now is a general Lib arts degree (I'm switching to History next year).

With so much discussion over the last few years about the pros and cons of taxpayer-funded healthcare, I'm curious if there was any pushback (especially in the 19th and 20th centuries) over taxpayer-funded education. It's easy to find information on historic controversies over the role of religion and race in public education. Was there ever a similar controversy over its 'socialist' roots?

From what I gather, in at least some previous eras it was perfectly acceptable for men to wear their emotions on their sleeves and to weep with grief. Then somewhere along the way it became unmanly, and men were expected to be stoic at all times.

Do we know when this trend started, and the sociological factors that triggered it?

I have been wondering this for a while now, was it kursk,Pearl Harbor, or anything else?

I want set aside all narratives or propaganda. I'm curious about namely these:

1. Did the major kings or emperors (in France, Germany, East Roman Empire, Holy Roman Empire) ever worry about displeasing the pope?

2. Did the major kings or emperors ever worry about making sure doctrine in their lands was in line with what the Papacy said?

3. How much did the papacy meddle in the affairs of their neighbors? Like tell who have a throne, send into lands, etc.

4. All in all, did the rulers of lands like the HRE as a rule see the papacy as a superior to worry about?

My history teacher told me that the untilted, "original" swastika never actually meant "peace and good will", but rather "peace by oppression", and that's why the top bars are above the lower bars. I tried looking this up, but everything seems to pretty much say it was a positive symbol until Hitler took a liking to it. Is my teacher correct?

I feel there's a lot written about the creation and spread of Arabic numerals in math, but I know nothing about how the written language of music (how we write cleffs, notes, rests, codas, etc.) came to be and more importantly - how this system became a universal.

Is it cosidered universal, and if so, how did it get adopted? What did it replace?

Hi everyone,

I'm currently doing some 3D modeling of the Knossos Palace and the Minoan society. While there are lots of things to be found of the actual Palace, I can't seem to find any information about the common houses. I have found some statues that were believed artistic depictions, and some rather rudimentary clay work, but nothing I can really base any structures on.

Does anyone here know where I can look for plan from archeological findings, maybe some earlier reconstructions, or dwellings that are similar?

Thank you very much!

[deleted]

From fragment 11. I'm guessing its about Sparta's belief that they descend from Hercules, but I don't fully comprehend.

From a theological perspective, the Catholic Church, and by extension the Protestant denominations that believe in apostolic succession, trace the lineage back to St. Peter and Jesus himself.

Is there documentation of apostolic succession that can trace modern bishops and priests to the earliest of the church fathers? Or is there a point between present day and the early 1st century CE in which historians can no longer definitively trace the lineage of apostolic succession? Is there a bishop that we can trace present day back to, however, we are unaware of who laid hands on him?

EDIT: I did more research on my own. 95% of Catholic priests trace their Apostolic Succession (or Episcopal Lineage) back to 1541 and Cardinal Scipione Rebiba. There is no historical documentation to show who laid hands on him, although it is believed to be the future Pope Paul IV that consecrated him. So there it is, it is traced back to just under 500 years ago, historically.

So I was watching Band of Brothers first time and after the finale I went on a wiki spree and ended on a page where I read that 1943 Himmler appointed an SS judge Konrad Morgen to "investigate charges of cruelty and corruption at the Buchenwald camp". The Names of Karl Koch his wife and a Martin Sommer came up. All three were convicted.

So what was the story? Were they just too bad? Or was this "just" the year 1943? How could they be too bad?

Sounds pretty sarcastic and surreal to me that the SS itself would charge people of their own, especially officers, because of "excessive cruelty".

It is my impression from everything I've read that, while nowadays overthrowing Hitler and thwarting the holocaust is shown as both an impressive accomplishment of the United States and a retroactive justification for the war, in reality FDR, Churchill etc didn't really think much about stopping the Nazi's genocide at all when making most of their decisions. In fact, often by not targeting the railroads to the death camps and by sending Jewish refugees back to their deaths the Allies showed their overall indifference at worst and ignorance at best of the genocide going on. Is this a correct interpretation of the facts though? Or were Allied motivations more heroic than that?

Voltaire said of the HRE that it was neither holy, Roman, nor an empire. The first two depend on one's own perception rather than facts, and the argument could go on forever without producing any real conclusion. The last part, "not an empire", was certainly true by Voltaire's time, but definitely untrue of Charlemagne's realm.

When did the HRE stop being an empire and transfomed into the mostly sovereign German states with nominal allegiance to an elected emperor?

In 2000, a number of Americans claimed that the Supreme Court stole the election for George W. Bush. In 2008 and 2012, Obama was forced to address whether or not he was an American citizen. More recently, Trump has had to contend with claims that Russian interference got him elected.

It seems clear to me that the American people have very little confidence in the electoral process. Has this happened before in American history, where a succession of presidents have faced opposition not based on their policies but on the supposed illegitimacy of their election?

Hello, please feel free to delete if this isn’t the proper community to post this in! New to following this subreddit and really enjoyed all the stuff I’ve read here so far.

Context: I’m an American undergrad at a British university doing a joint history and politics degree with a thesis in history. The word limit is 12,000 words incl. references. I wanted to do a study of the intersection of imperialist and pro-neutrality politics in interwar America but obviously needed to narrow that down significantly. So I talked with my advisor and he liked my idea of doing it through a local study of the area where I live (central Texas - specifically the German-American communities that mostly settled in the 1840s).

My question to y’all: do you have any websites or articles or tips you’d recommend on how to go about finding and using sources? I think it’ll end up being mostly written sources from local archives with a lot of contemporary local or state newspaper reports or editorials. I’ve gotten some guidance from the university but unfortunately they largely take a hands off approach to this kind of thing so would appreciate any advice you have!!

Hello, I’m an American and I’m curious about our history. I’m honestly not sure how I feel about our bombings, which is why I ask these questions. I don’t want to sound like I’m victim blaming, but I don’t see why Japan waited until it got hit with TWO nukes before it surrendered. I also don’t see why America couldn’t target, I don’t know, somewhere that wasn’t a city that didn’t do shit with the war?

I’m watching Gladiator and was talking with my friend and noticed the Mayan calendar is what we go off for the current year. So how did they determine what age they were in Ancient Rome? Or did they care at all? Did they say “Oh, I’m 10 300 moons old!”. Interesting question I assumed.

It seems like the Danes or people from around that area would constantly raid Frankish empire and Holy Roman Empire during that period. How did the much larger Frankish Kingdom and HRE not end up conquering Denmark?

So I had never heard of this before this year, when a friend of mine dropped a claim on me that "something big happened 12,000 years ago, something no one has been able to explain, and it changed history". He's since linked me to a Stephen Mehler (I don't really know him, so not sure how credible of a source this is) video talking about this supposed event, talking about how a ton of different cultures/ancient lores talk about some giant event that happened around that time, and also gone on to claim it could be linked to things like the extinction of mega-fauna and collapses of several advanced civilizations around that time.

I guess my question is - is this total BS? Or is there actually some firm evidence that supports the existence of this event?