There was not much room for hired work in the early flourishing periods of the mediæval cities, still less for individual hirelings. The work of the weavers, the archers, the smiths, the bakers, and so on, was performed for the craft and the city; and when craftsmen were hired in the building trades, they worked as temporary corporations (as they still do in the Russian artéls), whose work was paid en bloc. Work for a master began to multiply only later on; but even in this case the worker was paid better than he is paid now, even in this country, and very much better than he used to be paid all over Europe in the first half of this century. Thorold Rogers has familiarized English readers with this idea; but the same is true for the Continent as well, as is shown by the researches of Falke and Schönberg, and by many occasional indications. Even in the fifteenth century a mason, a carpenter, or a smith worker would be paid at Amiens four sols a day, which corresponded to forty-eight pounds of bread, or to the eighth part of a small ox (bouvard). In Saxony, the salary of the Geselle in the building trade was such that, to put it in Falke’s words, he could buy with his six days’ wages three sheep and one pair of shoes.[215] The donations of workers (Geselle) to cathedrals also bear testimony of their relative well-being, to say nothing of the glorious donations of certain craft guilds nor of what they used to spend in festivities and pageants.[216] In fact, the more we learn about the mediæval city, the more we are convinced that at no time has labour enjoyed such conditions of prosperity and such respect as when city life stood at its highest.

More than that; not only many aspirations of our modern radicals were already realized in the middle ages, but much of what is described now as Utopian was accepted then as a matter of fact. We are laughed at when we say that work must be pleasant, but — “every one must be pleased with his work,” a mediæval Kuttenberg ordinance says, “and no one shall, while doing nothing (mit nichts thun), appropriate for himself what others have produced by application and work, because laws must be a shield for application and work.”[217] And amidst all present talk about an eight hours’ day, it may be well to remember an ordinance of Ferdinand the First relative to the Imperial coal mines, which settled the miner’s day at eight hours, “as it used to be of old” (wie vor Alters herkommen), and work on Saturday afternoon was prohibited. Longer hours were very rare, we are told by Janssen, while shorter hours were of common occurrence. In this country, in the fifteenth century, Rogers says, “the workmen worked only forty-eight hours a week.“[218] The Saturday half-holiday, too, which we consider as a modern conquest, was in reality an old mediæval institution; it was bathing-time for a great part of the community, while Wednesday afternoon was bathing-time for the Geselle.[219] And although school meals did not exist — probably because no children went hungry to school — a distribution of bath-money to the children whose parents found difficulty in providing it was habitual in several places As to Labour Congresses, they also were a regular Feature of the middles ages. In some parts of Germany craftsmen of the same trade, belonging to different communes, used to come together every year to discuss questions relative to their trade, the years of apprenticeship, the wandering years, the wages, and so on; and in 1572, the Hanseatic towns formally recognized the right of the crafts to come together at periodical congresses, and to take any resolutions, so long as they were not contrary to the cities’ rolls, relative to the quality of goods. Such Labour Congresses, partly international like the Hansa itself, are known to have been held by bakers, founders, smiths, tanners, sword-makers and cask-makers.[220]

I know that nationalism was on the rise at the same time as the industrial revolution, but what was the connection between the two?

Who and when first theorised the possibility of a fission bomb?

So the year is 1965 in the UK or the US. Say the husband has a mistress he has been sleeping with and he wants to be able to marry the mistress. He is the one who has committed adultery.

Could he then apply for divorce, citing his own adultery?

Or did the one wanting a divorce [husband in this scenario] have to prove some fault of the other [wife]?

So in this scenario, would the wife have to be the one to seek divorce back then as she was the one who could prove fault against the husband?

Could she in effect refuse to get divorced and stymie the husband's wishes, never diivorce him so he could not marry his mistress?

The history channel says a sharp shooter killed him, do we know who specifically?

In my fantasy story, I'm basing a group of people off of the Ainu, and I want them to seem similar culturally. Did the Ainu have a family name - given name setup similar to the traditional Japanese or did they use something else entirely?

It seems a lot of people overestimate the capabilities of historians, somehow believing that historians can accurately determine why things didn't happen. Obviously, most of these questions end up unanswered, since no historians research why things didn't happen, and sometimes determining what did happen is hard enough as it is. Should questions like this be automatically redirected and/or deleted?

Im new to Reddit. I was looking into various ways to gain information pertaining to careers with a history degree. I am a complete history nerd and I really feel like the only thing I could enjoy doing is teaching history on the university level. That being said I have no idea what that career might be like. Is it possible? Is it extremely competitive? What are the demands of this career? The only thing i know for certain is i love history, I love reading, learning, sharing it with others. Im not intimidated by the work load that the degree requires. I suppose im just looking for someone to tell me the ends and outs of the career and to tell me to stop being a coward and buck up and do it!!!

I'm curious, since medical practices during the time of the black death were spotty at best, did plague doctors actually have any impact on combating it? Did they perhaps make it worse? If plague doctors weren't a thing, would the end result still be the same?

It never made sense to me why so many women would reveal themselves for novelty jewelry? Were the beads once worth something at the end of the party? Or is this just part of the general debauchery of the celebration?

Also, were these religious minorities subject to persecution during the Muslim conquest of Iraq and Iran and beyond?

My limited understanding is that plate-armor fell out of favor with the introduction of small arms since a bullet could easily pierce a breast-plate. Thus the extra weight became a liability and armored suits quickly became little more than decorations and heirlooms rather than practical battlefield defense.

My question then is did anyone attempt to reinforce plate suits to try and make them bulletproof? Are there any examples or records of experimentation in this regard. One off historical curiosities / attempts to make a "bullet proof knight"?

So my understanding is that once you were elected Quaestor you were eligible for Senate enrollment (assuming you were in the senatorial class). However, you always hear about there being 300 Senators, or so and so increasing or decreasing the number of Senators.

It seems to me, then, that if the Senate had a finite number you would generally have more former Quaestors than Senators. Was there a waiting list? Was a Senator's membership suspended if they were subsequently elected to Praetor or Consul? What happens when they came back from their governorship? Did they just reassume their seat?

Edit: apparently Reddit formatting doesn't work in titles. Oh well.

[deleted]