Additionally, who were the folks to discover that?

Who had close guesses and when?

Hello, I am interested in learning about some pre-Christian Hungarian religion, mythology, folklore, etc. I have found it pretty hard to come by on my own other than a few things here and there. So I was wondering if anyone on here had some more knowledge on the matter or sources they could recommend for me? I speak Hungarian and English so material in either language would be great :)

I'm currently reading The Anthropocene Reviewed by John Green and came across the following passage (emphasis mine):

Seventeenth-century Europe—with not just Newton and Hooke, but also Boyle and Galileo and Gascoigne and Pascal—saw so many important scientific and mathematical breakthroughs not because the people born in that time and place happened to be unusually smart, but because the analytic system of the scientific revolution was emerging, and because institutions like the Royal Society allowed well-educated elites to learn from one another more efficiently, and also because Europe was suddenly and unprecedentedly rich. It's no coincidence that the scientific revolution in Britain coincided with the rise of British participation in the Atlantic slave trade and the growing wealth being extracted from colonies and enslaved labor.

I've never considered the impact of slavery on the scientific revolution specifically and was curious to know more about it.

In his 1876 book On the Necessity of Amnesty, Francis-Xavier Raspail writes about the success of the decision of the American government to amnesty former rebels, and cites it as a positive example in favour of a similar amnesty after France's own civil war. How would a writer and politician from France have come to this conclusion, and does it match how the amnesty was seen in America in the decade following the war?

This is the quote that Civilization VI attributes to the Stirrup technology. What's so great about it? As an invention, it sounds like a no-brainer that should have been invented five minutes after inventing horse riding. "Hey, that horse is tall and hard to mount, maybe if I had something to step on that would help". And what influence did it have on history? In the tech tree, it leads to Banking and Gunpowder, none of which makes sense to me at this point. What's the thing with the stirrup?

To clarify, my question was more along the lines of how and why the Philippines never became a predominantly Spanish-speaking nation whereas the majority of Spain’s colonies in Latin America are, sorry for the confusion!

According to real academics and real historians, how did the Aztec and the Maya end up with figures so similar to dragons?

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: Marriage! What do you say, AH community? Ready to make it official? This week is about marriage! You know, that institution that brings us together today. You can share about marriage rituals, traditions, norms, crossovers between church and state, or whatever speaks to the tradition of walking the aisle!

If not, is the idea itself realistic? It is mentioned that the man traveled from Japan through Jakarta to Holland in a trip that took about a year.

Would people from the HRE have been aware of Japan or heard stories about it though the Dutch?

I vaguely recall medieval Europeans essentially referring to the Ottoman Empire as a centralized state, where whatever the sultan says goes - in contrast to western Europe's highly decentralized nature. However, upon reading more into it, it seems the Empire struggled with ayans, autonomous eyalets, had the timariot system, and struggled with local feudal lords for dominance. So, how centralized or decentralized was the empire actually, and how did this end up changing?

I'm sure there are a lot of examples of this but I can't find any examples.

I recently saw a video featuring a depot outside of London in 1941 where the wreckage of German planes was being deposited. Scrap metal drives were common during the wars with the metal recycled into war materiel. Would it have been possible to recycle the materials from crashed German aircraft and re use them?

1945 election*

For more context I was arguing with my dad that the concept of the nation-state did not exist before the 1800’s and the that it was predominantly multi-ethnic empires, confederations, city state etc

Hi there! I am world-building in your standard medieval-kinda-not fantasy setting and was wondering whenever a king sat down to eat a meal, who did he dine with? On a daily basis, not during festivals or the like. Just his family? Advisors? Other nobility or his court? etc etc

As I said I am messing around in the medieval-in-aesthetics-alone kind of universe but am looking for accurate answers for that time period, however, fun facts or information from another period is also always wonderful to know!

Thanks, everyone!

Funny enough, this question was inspired by Queen Cersei’s character in game of thrones.

It seems, given Atossa’s closeness to the throne, that she may have had the chance to heavily influence decisions made by her father, husband/brother, husband/cousin?, and son.

If so, is there any evidence to suggest that she used deceit, trickery, etc. to hold the throne or make important decisions? I can’t find many resources on her.

As always, thanks a ton to anyone who contributes! I hope this question is both specific and stimulating enough

Some webpages say that it started in 1954, others say that it was in 1955, and others say 1959; and my (Brazilian) schoolbook says it started in 1964! What the hell is going on here??

I was interested in purchasing the Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare, which seemed like a great two-volume history of ancient warfare, but the two books are $200 and $160. And the used versions aren't much cheaper. You're never going to find books published by Penguin or Basic Books that are nearly this expensive. Why are academic books priced like this? Who's supposed to buy a $400 history of ancient warfare?