I'm talking about overall ethnic identity/national identity, if that was even a thing back then. I have the feeling the answer is complicated.

In the middle ages, how did people (e.g. nobles) actually hunt deer from horseback? I have a general assumption that a hunting party would assemble on horseback, with hounds; they would ride until the dogs picked up a scent; the dogs would then bolt off, and the hunting party would chase after them in pursuit; eventually the deer would tire and the hunters would get close enough and at a slow enough speed that they could take shots with bows. But what is my assumption based on? Modern fox hunting? A few literary references? ... Does anyone know how it actually worked?

I remember reading fun facts such as Gorbachev being the first Soviet leader actually born in the Soviet Union, or jokes that Soviet Leadership was basically an old people's home.

Why was at least the high echelons of Soviet leadership like this? Is this due to political apathy, and was this an issue in other communist states such as China or Yugoslavia at the time?

I know nothing about anything here. I just keep hearing these terms juggled around in very different but related contexts, and it's all very confusing to me.

Furthermore, how different were the populations of Mycenaean and Classical Greece? (Athens for instance)? Apparently, classical Athenians called the Mycenaean fortress on the Acropolis "Pelasgian". But weren't roughly the same people living there the whole time?

Hey folks. I was having a discussion with a philosophy professor recently, and she mentioned that Descartes tried to limit how controversial Discours de la Méthode would be, particularly though correspondence with various people in the Church. What affect, if any, did this correspondence have on Discours, particularly on La Géométrie?

Explanations as well as secondary sources would be much appreciated.

Thanks in advance!

To make a sweeping generalization; Countries on both continents followed a similar policy of European settlement, colonization, Indigenous displacement, and bringing in enslaved Africans.

Yet, in general. Countries in South America managed to maintain a larger Indigenous community (relative to population) than in North America. Like, Bolivia's Indigenous population is at least 40% in comparison to 5% in Canada.

Though I'd get if there isn't a clear cut answer to this cause I'm comparing two continents as opposed to just two countries.

The Soga and Mononobe clans are extremely prominent when studying Japanese history during the Asuka/Nara eras. However, fast-forward a few centuries during the time of the Taira and Genji, they are barely (if at all) mentioned at all in general summaries of history.

Same with the Taira and Genji. Both clans were enormous, with several cadet branches. However, fast forward a few centuries, and they are not mentioned at all as being influential in the late Muromachi/Sengoku eras, if they even existed. A surface-level search is unable to find a Daimyo, or a samurai retainer with the Genji surname.

From my understanding, the clan names remained prestigious, as they served as proof of a connection with the Japanese Imperial clan. Tokugawa Ieyasu claimed to be a descendent of the Seiwa Genji, for example.

What exactly happened that basically caused this situation, where you have a prestigious centuries-old clan, but seemingly no famous people with said surname?

Austria started as a march of the HRE within Bavaria until it was raised to a Duchy in its own right by Frederick Barbarossa. The Babenbergs were a faithful but not a major major power within the HRE as dukes of Austria.

Then the Habsburgs, a swiss/swabian house received the Duchies of Austria & Styria and immediately were elected Kings of Germany. And from then on (mostly) they were able to secure the election of king and eventually emperor.

So was Austria (and Styria) densely populated? Full of gold & silver? Connected to important trade routes through the Danube or Alps?

Or was Austria just the largest single territory most prestigious (hereditary) title the Habsburgs held so everything eventually was put under that umbrella when they created the Archduchy of Austria?

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: Architecture! Homes, temples, forts. Palaces, barns, shacks. Cities and villages. Since the dawn of civilization, people have made great efforts to make their place of living in line with their own aesthetic choices - and made some breath taking examples with it. Come share stories about architecture in your period and area

My great uncle was a British flight engineer shot down over Germany in January of 1945. He is buried in a Berlin War Cemetery. When they were shot down I assume the Germans didn’t stop to bury them in the tranquil place of memorial they’re in now. So what happened to their bodies in the meanwhile in cases like this, and how did they sort them out later to bury them properly?

He’s apparently in 1 of 3 graves in a row as they didn’t know who was who in his crew, so clearly identification was difficult, but that’s still pretty specific given the circumstances.

Was crossbow more dangerous than a bow?

I begin by saying that of course, the greatest tragedy of the Korean and Vietnam (Indochinese) Wars were 3 and 3-5 million people slaughtered in the fighting.

However, an OCD part of me has always found something uniquely tragic about the fact that Korea, despite being a recognizably unified nation situated on the Korean peninsula for more than a millenia before the Korean War, ultimately is the nation still divided today, while Viet Nam as we know it today is really a merger between Dai Viet in the north and Champa in the south that was only really completed by the early 1800s. Sure lots of the Champa coast was conquered over hundreds of years, but still, the Southern part of Viet Nam being part of Viet Nam was at the time of the fighting was just barely over a century old, something of a blink in terms of history when we're talking some of the oldest civilizations on earth.

So my question is, why the hell did Ho Chi Minh and co. care so much about taking South Viet Nam when, unlike in Korea, it wasn't a millenia-old integral piece of the nation, but really something more of a modern addition to the state?

Was it because Ho didn't want North Viet Nam reduced to a Chinese satellite? Was there some issue of national pride?

I mean I figure these were partial reasons, but I guess what I'm asking is: given that Champa had its own separate history and culture closer tied to India than China for so long before the 19th century, why did Ho consider South Viet Nam, "Vietnamese-enough" to fight such a bloody war over it with the US?

We have lots of documented history of important historical figures but I’m looking for some on just regular people whether it be notes, letters, drawings, carvings, doodles, etc.

Off the top of my head I know of some graffiti in areas of Rome, the tablet complaining of service in the city of ur, Novgorod birch which had onfims doodles.

I’m perplexed as to how this city was apparently such a prominent cultural and financial center (even being named a Spanish Viceroyalty) in the 18/19th century despite being seemingly so removed from other civilization. I was recently reading David McCullough’s ‘The Path Between the Seas’ and he mentions the arduous journey to get there involving a river journey and horseback trekking — and that was in the mid-1800s. How did this land-locked city remain in contact with Spain? How did Bogota post-Columbian independence survive as the nation’s capitol, and why wasn’t a coastal city chosen instead [like other major South American cities, such as Caracas, Lima, Buenos Aires, Rio de Janeiro (pre Brasília), etc.]?

So, what I know of this is basically what Wikipedia said lol (and yes I plan to research further!) but basically…

The AEC was born in 1946 and quickly transfers from government to civilian control by the next year. It is abolished entirely in 1974 and replaced with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

So I’m not sure I quite understand. Being transferred to civilian control, is it no longer a government agency altogether? As in just a bunch of dudes making money?

Thank you

It just makes sense to me that since Italy was under control and the Mediterranean was under control to invade both in Normandy and in Marseille or something. What am I missing?

I am looking for book recommendations about the reformation, 30 years war, 80 years war, and Westphalia. Generally a good history book or podcast of the period. Thanks.

I’ve often heard that native Americans lived “more in harmony with nature,” or something to that effect than Europeans did in the Americas. For example, I know Europeans wiped out species like the California grizzly and almost wiped out the buffalo, clear cutting forests, etc. But were native Americans actually any better like it’s often claimed? I remember reading about the maya engaging in clear cutting and causing soil erosion and I know it’s been speculated early native Americans at least contributed to the extinction of species like the mammoth and giant sloth. So how accurate is it that native Americans lived in a more balanced way with nature?