Visiting stately homes is a fairly common family day out in Britain, especially since so many are open for public viewing thanks to the National Trust and similar organisations. I had always assumed that this started once organisations like the Trust took over these places, until I recently read Pride and Prejudice.

In the book, which predates the National Trust by about a century, Elizabeth and her aunt and uncle are on holiday in Derbyshire and visit the gardens and house at Pemberley. They are even shown round the house by the housekeeper and shown pictures of the family who live there. Would this be normal behaviour? Were these houses considered somewhat public or would it be strange to just knock on the door and ask to have a look around?

For an engagement with so many ships, I would have expected many more losses on both sides.

I mean not a single dreadnought was sunk on either side.

The causes of the French Revolution - high bread prices, starvation, the habitual indecency of the aristocrats towards the peasants and townspeople - are talked about a lot. To what extent did the Revolution actually help end those horrors? Did it relieve the "hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break"?

(I'm asking primarily about the time before the Napoleonic wars.)

[deleted]

Hi, i've been looking for sources for my History exam and really need some books about the economics and politics of germany during this period. Are there any you would recommend?

I'm reading through lecture notes as I revise and came across my lecturer saying that the Clodian corn dole of 5 modii a month per free or freed adult man over ten would only have been enough to provide 1/2-2/3rds of their required food.

I've modelled the daily nutritional value that five modii of corn would probably provide using estimations from Pliny that would have a modius be equal to 6.5-7kg of grain and the nurtitional value of dry spelt (assuming that the grain was doled out dry and that spelt is fairly similar to Roman varieties).

What evidence is there for the Roman plebs requiring significant anounts of food on top of the dole? And in the event that they didn't does this mean housing costs were so high that this was necessary to keep the plebs alive?

(I don't understand, based on my calculations, how his numbers could be the case, but don't wan't to hassle my lecturer on a minor detail from a months old lecture when I've probably made a glaring mistake. )

My calculations:

Thoughts:

Presumably the ration isn't intended for just one person, and it is assumed they might have dependants. Looks like a single man could probably do more than ok so long as you had substantial extra fat in your diet, and presumably vegetables, but remember women, girls, and under tens need to be fed. NB extra grain is occasionally coming in from patricians, but we'll discount that as being unpredictable.

The ration looks like it might provide almost enough food for two people, although ofc the reference intake is probably based on someone sedentary, and they probably weren't, which would massively raise the requirements (though malnourishment was high wasn't it)

Even if we say the adult men and their wives are doing enough heavy manual labour to require twice as much food as a sedentary person, their children probably don’t. (And once your eldest son turns ten (at which point prob unlikely to have that many kids given infant mortality and breastfeedings efects on fertility? ) you can feed other kids too). Also it looks like children get a reduced dole called alimenta, including girls, which takes further strain off?

If you had two or more sons over 10 things could be a lot more manageable - similarly they may have been living in family groups large enough to pool resources? Perhaps that’s why republican era plebian tombstones (or at least the rich ones?) are often for brothers and wives. Living with parents would help too. The issue is being able to afford to raise children to 10 (but they too can start working at some point, increasing caloric needs but bringing in money for more food)

it's unlikely that they'd have that many mouths to feed: even considering a high probable birth rate infant mortality is c.30% and Forsch 1998 seems to suggest (in abstract, my german isn't good) c.3 under fives max per average family at a time.

Basically things would be tight but it looks like there'd be almost enough food, assuming that they lived in slightly extended family groups?

Had dating become more casual as it is today, or was there still a more formal courtship process like in the 19th century? Would it be unusual to simply ask someone on a date? What activities were popular date choices? Was the dating scene very different in the United States compared to Western Europe?

Present day, with all of the access to information we enjoy, it is still quite easy to become misinformed. Any idea that is presented requires extensive fact checking. Who and what institutions were responsible for fact checking information? if there was an event that was recorded or an idea based on the outcome of a recorded event, what was standard in ensuring that the thoughts presented were factual?

I have been trying to find a book or similar devoted to Australian 20th century history. While there seem to be sources for specific events, I haven't been able to locate any broad overviews of the century. While covering a recent century of a nation's history could be too large and undertaking and perhaps too recent to be considered in its entirety; it seems like historical reporting and analysis of 20th century Australia is virtually nonexistent except for events that have international connections, such as world wars. Certainly the vast majority of Australian history books focus on the colonial era. Are there any books or podcasts people can refer me to that cover 20th century history, including any that provide a good overview as a starting point to learn more? If anyone has any experiences or insights relating to the dearth (or otherwise) of 20th century Australian history in books, school lessons, etc. I would also be interested in hearing your comments.

Especially interested in the provinces of the Roman Republic and the early Empire. Thank you.

I have always wondered about this.

Why does the ancient age seem much more "EPIC" as compared to late medieval/middle ages.

Why does the ancient armies of the ancient ages (Roman Republic, Roman Empire, Greeks, Macedonian, Persians etc) seem to have a grander scale or more epic armies and battles compared to Middle/ Late Medieval ages?

For comparison, why does the Roman Empire seem to have a very large, spread out and state funded Military whereas in the Late Medieval/Middle ages Kings have to win the support of various noble houses to acquire their armies?

[deleted]

Really, my question is: To what extent was Congress aware of the Manhattan Project? Are there any examples of something being so top-secret that not even our elected representatives can know about it, and under what would that occur?

Hi, hopefully this isn't the wrong subreddit for this. If so, let me know where to post instead.

Somehow I've gotten to be as old as I am, which isn't that old but still, with only knowing ancient history. I'm interested in learning more about modern history, but I'm having trouble finding books on the US about its history since WWII, as well as other places such as Europe, Latin America, the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. When I say post WWII, I mean history from 1945 on. Basically, a time frame and not specifically about what was done to "remedy" (for lack of a better word) the destruction and chaos of the second world war.

I'm not looking for a single book on all of these topics, just a couple books following different regions of the world beginning from some point in the 20th century and cover a chunk of the second half of that century.

Hopefully this has been clear, if not let me know. Thanks!

So the definition of slavery is being forced into servitude under bondage. In some accounts of the Irish indentured servants, many were conducted overnight, placed on ships and sent to several countries. The Irish were sold also and often if the woman slave had children the children were also slaves and by this account even if the Irish woman eventually earned freedom she wouldnt leave her own children for obvious reasons. Why isn't this talked about in the media? Or in schools?

Was just wondering whether the German army and police force was manned by native Germans or by the Soviets, If there was a significant presence of the Soviets please provide a number if possible..

Thank you..