I'm asking because I'm curious about the advent of stirrups. Horses seem quite challenging to mount without stirrups, and it seems that a stirrup-like device would be an almost obvious solution to anyone attempting to jump/climb their way onto a horse. This has me wondering why the stirrup didn't arise sooner among any/all horse-riding cultures, at least on one side, as a mounting aid. Did the Romans have some other mounting solution that negated the need for the stirrup as a mounting device? Were their other barriers to the invention?

When the 13 colonies revolted against the British Empire, it seems that a natural ally against British rule would be French-Canadian Quebeckers. They had only recently been under British rule after the French and Indian War and I cannot imagine French colonists enjoying life under English-speaking Brits. But French colonists did not end up joining the 13 colonies in rising up against British rule, even as France became an ally to the 13 colonies.

So why? Why didn't the French-speaking population in Quebec join their 13 neighbors and their former mother country (France) in waging war against the British?

I've only really known off-hand about Santeria, and only recently have heard of Palo Mayumbe. Did these religions intermix with one another in their early stages? Was there a rivalry between them? And did they develop along different ethnic African lineage lines (at least initially) or were their traditions spread regardless of this.

I want to focus on a European perspective, since I am aware that the topic 'suicide' has, eg. in countries like Japan, a vastly different cultural significance.

The question arose for me while watching some semi trashy historic TV show in which one of the 10th century saxon characters stabbes himself to avoid trial for treason. I also remember that in the BBC series Rome suicide was a more common occurrence/topic. I am aware that these drama series are not exactly historic sources, but in my laymen historic education I also remember stumbling over suicide multiple times in real historic sources.

In Christianity suicide is for the most part considered a sin, but it still happened. Is it possible to say if there was a difference in occurrence of suicide between the pre-christian Europe and the christianised one? Was suicide seen as an accepted escape of lifes misery in ancient times? And was it still accepted in Christian lands as an, even if sinfull, still honourable way out?

In our modern times the number of conducted suicides by men massively outweighs that of women. Was there a similar gender difference in other time periods?

How much did the common people know about suicide? Was it a occurrence that happened in most bigger settlements on a regular basis or did it stay a very rare occurrence? Did people even have a general idea how to end their life effectively if they decided to do so?

I remember for example one episode in the German history in which young people copied the suicide of the protagonist in Goethe's 'The Sorrows of the Young Werther'. It seems that they were before either not aware of this 'possibility' or felt morally justified by copying a loved fictional character.

I’ve read about the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European creation myth, but although I’ve found the names for most of the characters, I haven’t encountered a reconstructed name for the Primordial Cow in the myth.

Are there any interesting contenders for the name? Or has it probably just been the PIE root for cow (*gʷṓws)?

There's a lot of stories about Easter or Christmas coming from pagan origins that have pretty thoroughly been debunked, but it's astounding to me how little of pre-Christian European culture seems to have survived. What allowed for this essentially total destruction to occur?

I'm taking a class about the antebellum south and our first chapter was on the Stono rebellion. One of the sources we read mentioned off hand that the militia were at church when the call was sounded, and due to a South Carolina law, all men were required to bring their guns with them to church. What was the reasoning for this law?

How WILD wild west really was? Could you really just stand off a dude in a middle of a town and nobody seemed to care? What are some ridiculous stories/facts from the wild west that made it so wild?

Afaik, everything from pubs to public transport had separate areas for blacks and whites. Where would two friends of different races meet up to hang out, or did that never happen?

This question is rooted in what's recently happening in Ukraine and how that affected (effected?) food supplies in Egypt. While that's definitely too close to the 20 year rule would the reasons behind this have began in the end of the last century? I also heard that part of the foreign aid that Egypt receives from the US is dependent on not growing its own wheat but that sounds rather suspicious.

We know that by the time Federick II ruled, the King spoke sicilian, but what about his grandfather, Roger II, for example?

Alternatively anything about the Greek period through to the enlightenment. In French or English, and even just a general history of medieval southern France would do.

See title.

Welcome to Tuesday Trivia!

If you are:

• a long-time reader, lurker, or inquirer who has always felt too nervous to contribute an answer
• new to /r/AskHistorians and getting a feel for the community
• Looking for feedback on how well you answer
• polishing up a flair application
• one of our amazing flairs

this thread is for you ALL!

Come share the cool stuff you love about the past!

We do not allow posts based on personal or relatives' anecdotes. Brief and short answers are allowed but MUST be properly sourced to respectable literature. All other rules also apply—no bigotry, current events, and so forth.

For this round, let’s look at: Disability! Not only is there no one definition of what it means to have a disability, what's a disability in one community, may not be in a different one. This week is about the complexities of what it means to have a disability (or people who are perceived as having, or self-identify as having, a disability) at all points in time and all places around the world. (Note: we do ask that if you're going to describe a historical figure using modern language of disability or diagnose someone with a specific illness, we ask that you're considerate with your language and that you consider the impact on readers.)

I recently heard a Serbian historian refer to this war as "Great Vienna war from 1683 to 1699", the context was that he was speaking about the consequences this had on the Jewish community of the Vojvodina. However in German historiography this war is still referred to as "Great Turkish war" (Großer Türkenkrieg). I also saw it referred to as "Austro-Turkish war" on a website that spoke about the same topic the historian was talking about.

I wonder now how the best way would be to refer to this war. After all "Turkey" was the Ottoman empire back than and it was fighting the "Holy Liga" which was much bigger than Austria. And "Austro-Turkish war" obscures a bit that it was the Ottomans who were trying to conquer more land and gives it a weird vibe referring to two nations that actually didn't exist back than. Now it makes me think to refer to it as "Great Vienna war from 1683 to 1699" is not so bad as people know the second battle of Vienna and it circumvents this question. What do historians that know about the time period say? How should we refer to this war best for our history video project? What would be most correct? Mind you, we would prefer it to be also short.

Were there any people that lived in ancient times that we against the practice of slavery? I guess Spartacus could be one.

Apologizes, this season was set in 1986 but my point remains.