[deleted]

I have no idea if this is where to post, so please be kind if it’s incorrect and perhaps redirect me.

I am related by marriage (gg grandfather) to Colonel Frederick Gustavus Burnaby (Queen’s Royal Horse Guards), during Victorian England times. I won’t bother to explain who he is because Wikipedia does a great job and I don’t know how to put a link on here anyway. But he was quite famous during his time (and quite a character!).

Point being, I have original correspondence from his life time, from many very important people, like Winston Churchill‘s dad (Blenheim Palace) etc. I also have a few of his very old family books, with inscription‘s, one from the 1600s, and some from the 1700s. I’d post a shot of these but I guess you can’t on this sub.

I have no idea what to do with these documents or if they have any value anyway. Can anyone throw some advice my way please? I’d really appreciate it because I’m lost. Thanks!

I often hear about how the island hopping of WW2 had high casualties for the Americans, but why were they higher for the Japanese defenders? Shouldn't they have been higher for the Americans since they had to attack the islands?

I’ve been reading and watching WWII documentaries lately and as an American, I’ve been surprised about some of the awesome heroism and tales of the ANZAC soldiers and commandos I’ve read about, and who I never heard mentioned in my HS and college history courses.

Can someone explain to me what the specific roles the ANZAC troops were used for in WWII and any other notes or anecdotes about their significance in the war as a fighting force? Thanks.

I've been very interested in modern eastern asian history and have decided to read up on these people in particular, due to their role in the success of their countries. However they seem to be shrouded in a veil of bad history and I'm very unsure of which books to pick, I would therefore love some recommendations.

Suggestions of other important modern east asian leaders would also be greatly appreciated (for example in Japan or Korea)!

whenever I read or watch something on World War One, America is always shown to fight on the France Trench Lines against the Germans, but no where else. Did they ever fought in other allied fronts, like with Greece & The Ottomans, or Russia against Austria-Hungary?

I have often heard Cyrus the Great (Achaemenid Dynasty, Persia) described as one of the greatest leaders in written history. I know some generic things about him, such as his tolerance of those he ruled, but would like to know more.

Almost all of the largest empires in human history were carved out with horse archers. Many of those empires included European territory or warred with European powers.

On an open field with room to run, horse archers will reliably take down any enemy army that did not field horse archers of their own. Horse archers are the single deadliest unit type until the advent of reliable gunpowder weaponry. So why did Europeans not make more use of them?

You might argue that the feudal armies of Europe relied upon peasant levies and landed nobility. The former were unable to afford a horse, and the latter preferred mele combat as a knight. But what about the era of professional armies?

When the first standing army was formed by Gustavus Adolphus in 1611, there were zero horse archers. Every professional army since him has also neglected the most effective pre-gunpowder unit. So what gives?

I'm reading a book that mentioned a "dolphin wig" recorded in a primary source account of possessions from 17th-century Italy. What is a dolphin wig?

Hello, I was having a conversation with a Christian and my opinion is that there is evidence a historical Jesus existed, as well as evidence for the crucifixion, but there’s no evidence for the resurrection.

He sent me the following. What do you guys think? Thank you.

—————————————-

Historical evidence for the resurrection:

1. The death of Jesus. There is no record of anyone surviving a Roman crucifixion and the Roman soldiers that executed Jesus would themselves face dire consequences if they failed to properly execute a condemned criminal. Also, the gospel of John records a flow of blood and water flowing from the spear wound of Jesus, which strongly suggests that Jesus had pleural effusion, a condition in which water collects in the lungs after cardiovascular shock. Finally, the earliest claim made about Jesus (1st Corinthians 15 3-8) was the he died, was buried and rose again. The historical and medical evidence all agree that Jesus died by crucifixion.
2. The earliest historical account (the gospel of Mark) claims that the tomb was found empty on Sunday and there is no evidence that the body was ever produced. There is a general agreement among scholars that the story of the empty tomb went back to an even earlier oral traditional about Jesus that was circulating in the Jerusalem community. Also, the early proclamation in Jerusalem is strong evidence that the tomb was empty. Why? Because Jesus' crucifixion was a public event with many witnesses and certainly people would have known the location of his tomb and whether it was empty or not. The apostles could not have claimed Jesus rose from the dead in Jerusalem if the location of the tomb was known and not empty.
3. The disciples of Jesus were transformed and began to evangelize to the known world. Tacitus and Aristides of Athens both refer to the Christian movement breaking out and spreading rapidly over the known world.
4. At least some of the disciples were martyred for their belief and there is no evidence any of them recanted. Luke, Clement of Rome, Igantius of Antioch, Hegisippus, and others all refer to their martyrdoms. The five best-attested martyrdoms are Peter, Paul, James the Just, James the brother of John, and Thomas.
5. The earliest claim made about Jesus is 1st Cor. 15 3-8, which says he died, was buried, and rose again and appeared to witnesses. This claim was passed along by Paul, who knew the eyewitnesses Peter and James, and was attested by people who gave their lives. There is universal agreement that this creed goes back to the early 30s AD, far too early to be legendary.
6. The conversion of Paul and James, two former skeptics and individuals hostile to the church. What would cause Paul to become the greatest evangelist ever in history? Why would James suddenly go from being skeptical to becoming a leader of the Jerusalem church and dying for the cause?
7. The break with previous Jewish traditions. Why would they move the Sabbath to Sunday, or do away with animal sacrifice, when doing so could mean death by stoning?
8. The New Testament "chain of custody". The apostles Peter, Paul and John had students, and their students had students, and so on. These individuals left writings that are extant which allows us to determine whether or not the claims about Jesus changed over time. Remarkably enough, no matter how early you start in the transmission of claims made about Jesus, one finds that one is stuck with a miracle-working, risen Jesus.
9. The historical accuracy of the book of Acts. Time and time again, historical and archeological discoveries have supported the claims made by Luke and he performs admirably in his reporting of the early Christian movement. Luke was almost certainly a travelling companion of Paul and was close to the eyewitnesses.
10. The early dating of the Gospels and Acts. There are multiple pieces of internal and external evidence that support an early dating (prior to 70 AD) for the Gospels and Acts, such as the statements by early church fathers that Mark was a scribe of Peter, the statement by Luke that he knew people "from the beginning that were eyewitnesses to the word", the claim that John was an eyewitness account, the omissions of the deaths of Peter, Paul and James by Luke, the failure to name who cut off Malchus' ear, and so on.
11. The large number (about 5800) of relatively well-preserved Greek manuscripts and fragments of the New Testament which agree with one another to about 95-96%. Out of the 400,000 variations, only 1% are meaningful, and only half of those are viable, leaving about 2000 meaningful, viable variations. Since the New Testament has 138,162 words, that's only one meaningful, viable variation every 3 pages or so. We have far more manuscripts of the New Testament than any other ancient work and they are far better preserved than any other ancient work with the possible exception of the Old Testament.
12. The short time-gap between the autographs and earliest fragments (about 100 years). This is much shorter than any other ancient document.
13. The historical corroboration of many of the details of Jesus' life, death, and Resurrection by multiple, early 1st and 2nd century sources outside of the New Testament, such as Tacitus, Clement of Rome, Igantius, Polycarp, Quadratus, Aristides, etc.

While I love reading AskHistorians generally, my favorite posts tend to be those that include scholarly debate. Whether something is unsettled or there are recent publications that change or even upend conventional understanding, I love to read two (or more!) conflicting approaches to a topic, backed by appropriate resources, and see how people weight different evidence for or against their positions.

What are some of the best examples you have bookmarked, covering any topic? More than just examples, have you been in one that has changed your mind, or at least opened up a new avenue to consider?

It seems from historical fiction (eg Downton Abbey and similar) that very wealthy people in days past were content with just being wealthy owners of capital and not really “doing” anything. Their children would be given general education that would give them the social skills necessary to be aristocrats as but weren’t really expected to go to work as an engineer, doctor, teacher, etc. They were just content to be wealthy and preserve the family’s source of wealth so they could continue living a life that didn’t involve work. Work, even white collar work, seemed to be considered undignified by the aristocracy.

However, now it seems that the ultra wealthy are expected to “do” something, at least nominally, even if it is to have a fake job at the family business or run a money losing startup, or work for a non profit. If you look at the Forbes 500, most of the people who inherited wealth still “do” something. I feel like this would not have been the case if there was a Forbes 500 in 1890 or indeed 1690. If you are a centi millionaire or billionaire, there is no reason that anyone in your family would ever need to work again if the money is managed properly and children were guided to marry well, but it seems that very few wealthy families embrace this attitude. Instead, the wealthy and powerful strive to get their children a job at Goldman Sachs or a surgical residency at Johns Hopkins, whereas in years past this would have been seen as beneath their station.

What caused this change in attitude? Why do we now associate prestige with what people do rather than what they own?

[deleted]

I had a question I wanted to ask, in regards to the rules. If this is an inappropriate way of doing so, I apologize, and wouldn't object to the Mods removing this.

My question was - the rules argue against personal knowledge and anecdotes. However we are allowed to provide information through secondary literature. Speaking as a historian, Is it against the rules of the sub if I provide an answer drawing on my personal research, and provide a reference to my own published work.

Would my own published work not be an appropriate thing to cite? If I were citing myself, I would be careful to highlight my own research and personal conclusions from general information for the question asker, but first I'd like to know if this is even allowed, or against the what the community believes constitutes appropriate answers.

Regards

[deleted]

Characters in the movie include:

• a black ambassador to Scotland (from England)
• a gay/bisexual friend of Mary who is also of color
• a gay/bisexual husband of Mary (Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley)
• an Asian servant of Elizabeth I
• a black attaché to Mary

These are all from memory and are not meant to be a full representation