I’m researching the quartermaster department of Fort Scott, present-day Kansas, from 1849-1851. I’ve run across a switch from tallow candles to sperm, which means spermicelli from a whale. Tallow candles were still available and preferred by nearby posts like Leavenworth.

Given the conditions of the Fort, why the preference for sperm over tallow?

Did they trade for them from Central Asia, like China and India, or were they breeding enough horses on their own in Europe?

Maybe a better way to phrase my question is, what American genres weren’t influenced or started by African American traditions.

I just listened to the podcast, Uncivil. An episode discusses the song “I wish I was in Dixie” and how it was likely coopted by a white Manhattan song writer in the late 1850s from a group of black singers in Ohio. The ballad of the confederacy came from black tradition. It got my wondering if it’s possible to rewrite history that dramatically, how has it been rewritten for other songs and genres.

Ragtime music and later Jazz were of African origin. Rock and roll was heavily influenced by the blues, also of African American origin. Led Zeppelin, The Rolling Stones and other popular groups were directly influenced by the delta blues. Country, which some consider the “least” African American genre also was heavily influenced by the black experience.

I’m not sure what I’m asking exactly, I just want to know more.

Greetings, Redditors

In France, history classes always divide history in 4 periods:

• Antiquité (Antiquity): starting around 3500 and 3000 B.C. with the invention of writing in Mesopotamia and Egypt;

• Moyen-Âge (Middle Ages): beginning in 476 A.D. with the Fall of Rome;

• Temps modernes (Modern Times): usually starting in 1492 (discovery of America by Columbus) or 1453 (the Fall of Constantinople);

• Époque contemporaine (Contemporary era): beginning in 1789 with the French Revolution.

This periodization of history is obviously designed for a Eurocentric history therefore I was asking myself:

• How do other civilizations divide their history? For example, the Fall of Rome didn't impact China much, so when did Chinese Antiquity end? Another example would be the US since their Revolution would be the start of the Contemporary Era. Are there timelines showing the different "cultural" periodizations side by side?

• How did ancient historians divide time?

• Are these periods a consensus or do they cause controversy?

• Which historians are behind it?

• The gradual shortening of these different periods shows a sort of "acceleration of history", is it real?

• Do they have any actual academic value in the study of history or is it only a way to popularize and simplify history?

• Finally, are we already in a new era? If yes, what would be the starting point?

When talking about the ancient- medieval period, the many nomadic tribes of the Eurasian steppe seem to play a pivotal role in how many historical events went down. From Genghis Khan to Timur, some hordes changed the world based on their exploits. But as one learns about the Renaissance and the age of exploration, it seems that these peoples are forgotten almost entirely. The only exceptions I know are the semi nomadic Manchu people, who went on to form the last dynasty of China. Why and When did the Eurasian steppe tribes lose their relevancy in terms of shaping history?

I've been reading the FAQ with the criticisms of books like Sapiens, Guns Germs and Steel, A People's History, The Better Angels of Our Nature, etc.

Are there books of this kind which are accurate, supported, well-argued, etc? By "of this kind" I mean -- large in scope, makes (to some extent) novel broad explanatory principles or interpretations, friendly for laymen, etc. I don't mean just a regular history book of the world.

Or, is history just too complicated for any theory-of-everything type books to be accurate?

Flying in those times was a luxury, from what I understand. Would black passengers be segregated to specific parts of the plane? Did this change depending on airline or route?

I was just thinking about governmental structures and how it affects their effectiveness and susceptibility to corruption along with other pitfalls and was wondering how athenian democracy stood up in this regard and wether or not that would work differently today.

I have been scanning through a "history" book on government, money, and banking that provides no references/sources for its history. Are history books required to provide sources? If they do not are they immediately suspect?

One face says великая отечественная - Petty Patronage, the other says отечественная воина, Patronage Warrior. It also has the hammer and sickle alongside the years 1941-1945. Any clue as to the background/meaning to this?

I'm taking a US labor course where we discuss various topics like the 13 colonies and slavery becoming prevalent, and events leading up to the Revolutionary War. But I'm having a hard time grasping how Land Rioters in New York and New Jersey helped push the nation at the time towards rebelling from Britain. Any help would be appreciated!

So I'm aware of how the major root of classical Greece is Egypt by means of Minoan and Mycenaean cities. I guess what I'm wondering is why and how did places like Athens and Argos become so ahead of the curve, especially related to their parent civilizations.

If the creators of Stonehenge placed logs from the outer section inward and across the center, it would be turned into a habitable fort. The entrances around the structure could be used to shoot arrows and throw projectiles at foes. Food and other valuables could also be kept within the center. The center would also be a safe location for women, children, and elderly during times of peril.

It sounds logical, but is it possible?

Of course in Italy they could use preexisting names. My question is aimed more at tre conquered provinces. Like for example in todays Western Germany a lot of names still show resemblance to the Roman names they were once given. Like Cologne or Mainz which where once named Colonia and Mogontiacum respectively. Both seem like decidetly latin names, so I assume that they didnt use the local names for those places. But if not then how did they name them? Did they just go wild like in the Settlers in the American west, where a settlement could be named after anything from the settlers last name to litteraly just the word Tombstone, or where there certain rules or practices that where followed?

Whenever people talk about British kings, or list them, it always starts with William I in 1066. I'd always assumed that before him, there were a bunch of petty kings and he was the first to conquer them and unify England, but I found out that it was actually Æthelstan who had done that, over 100 years earlier. So why doesn't English monarchical history start with him?

A lot of small towns I've read about have less than a thousand inhabitants, which is unbelievably small for a "town" in my eyes. In my country of Malaysia in contrast, a village ("kampung") are officially settlements of 10,000 or fewer people -- so a lot of villages here are bigger than some American "towns"!

How did this terminology come to be?

In the 18th century, France was the case study for an absolute monarchy. The internal turmoil resulted in the French Revolution, which in turn resulted in a series of dictatorships and eventually Napoleon I's empire. After France lost the Napoleonic wars, it was turned back into an absolute-ish monarchy. King Louis Philippe tried implementing a reform to turn France into a constitutional monarchy, but was overthrown in 1848, when a republic was established and Napoleon III came into office. He staged a military coup d'etat and became an emperor of France until 1871, when France lost the Franco-Prussian war. After another period of turmoil, France emerged as a fully democratic nation, and, with a small break for the Vichy government, it stayed that way ever since. Why? What was different in 1871 compared to every other French revolution?

Additionally, how have the consequences for dressing/looking outside the social norm changed? For example, I’ve heard that some women were burned at the stake for the way they dressed, and some victorians were excluded from society for exposing ankles. Were these common, or were consequences usually more minor?

Thanks to anyone answering this for their time, the work that goes into this sub is fantastic and I appreciate it a ton!

I feel like an idiot posting this question. I have a Masters in Linguistics and, although my focus was on Southeast Asian languages, I know the history of the Anglo-Saxon in quite a lot of detail. However, I understand that a language is not the same as a culture - any language can easily be appropriated from any group of speakers and the entire context of its usage flipped upside down for economic or political aims. So, I almost had an argument with my brother about the existence of Anglo-Saxons as an ethnic group, and had to back out because I realised that I didn't feel confident that I knew enough about the subject.

Essentially, my brother said that he lived with a historian (no background available about this historian), and this historian has planted some ideas in his head about the Anglo-Saxon ethnic group. What my brother told me was a bit muddled (perhaps he didn't know clearly himself what he was saying), but essentially these were the following statements I heard him making:

1. Anglo-Saxons were wiped out by the Normans in the south and the Vikings in the north.

2. Because of efforts by the Normans and Vikings to ethnically cleanse England of Anglo-Saxons, we have only a few ambiguous scraps of evidence that Anglo-Saxons even existed (e.g. Beowulf).

My brother is anti-Brexit and I believe either he, or his historian friend, have spun this narrative to discredit English nationalists. What are the facts? I'm sure that Anglo-Saxon culture was not wiped out, but their records and artefacts may well have been destroyed by Normans. I'm especially interested to know if any erasure of Anglo-Saxon society or culture was done intentionally.

Watching some sunday morning tv the horrible histories movie guy is on and mentions Columbus never hitting America, only the Americas.

So why do Americans attribute genocide to Columbus?

I hope this is the right sub