[deleted]

I'm an English teacher, but our training tends to be pretty vague on the events of the fifth and sixth centuries around the time Anglo Saxon/Old English appears. I studied some of this in graduate school in the 1990s, and, at the time, the narrative presented was that Anglo Saxon culture eclipsed Celtic culture as the result of large-scale invasions of Germanic tribes. I know from the History of the English Language course I took that very few Celtic words were incorporated into English.

At the same time, some recent British archaeologists using ground-scanning techniques are saying that they are not finding the evidence they thought they should find of large-scale invasions and are hypothesizing that the Anglo-Saxon takeover was accomplished by a relatively small number of invaders. (They are also arguing that writers like Bede and Gildas may have been making things up in their accounts.) The whole topic seems to be muddied by a lot of sentimental attachment to mythical histories.

It may simply be a failure of my imagination, but I have a hard time imagining how Anglo-Saxon language and culture would have replaced Brittonic Celtic so completely without large scale invasion, especially since there are so many examples of native languages persisting in the face of colonization. The Irish never entirely lost Irish Gaelic. English persisted in modified form after 1066. Indians speak English, but also Hindi and Urdu. Are there counter-examples of languages being abandoned in favor of the language of new arrivals?

I understand that the documentation of the period is poor at best, so the only answer may be that we don't yet know exactly what happened.

Just in case you're gonna answer with this: yes, I do know that the word Nazi is short for the German for National Socialism, I know why those two words are synonymous. But why do National Socialists call themselves National Socialists? They were clearly not socialists in the way that we talk about socialists. So why?

I recently learned that there still were a couple kings after Louis XVI, so my question is: Who ruled France between the revolution and the execution of Louis And Marie Antoinette? And who ruled it after that?

My Japanese friend is adamant that Pearl Harbor was not, in fact, a surprise attack as a declaration of war was sent to America. We simply didn't translate it in time so it was our lack of preparation that made the attack so devastating.

I want to call horseshit on this as they also believe (as was taught in the school system) that Japan did not use comfort women, but I did some googling and read that Japan did send a declaration of some kind.

What went down? Did they bungle the normal procedure? Did we simply not get it translated or send it where it needed?

[deleted]

Everywhere I read about his origins it says he originally served the Imagawa but left, and then skips directly to him being Nobunaga's sandal bearer. What happened in between? Was he already something like a high-ranking ashigaru? I imagine it requires earning trust and some merit to get to become sandal bearer to a daimyo. Additionally, what would his job entail as a sandal bearer? Was it literally just keeping the daimyo's sandals at his disposal? Would he also act as a bodyguard, or run errands and other similar tasks?

In modern culture, we often imagine a King having atleast one wizard or magical user giving mystical advice, the most famous being Merlin. Was there any truth to this? Obviously not talking about actual wizards, frauds or "mystics" without demonstrable powers count just as well.

What is the definition of “Ur-History?” I’ve encountered it largely in socio-historical works. /:

Germany has, despite that great big forest, and being the loser of two world wars, 236 people per square km.

Britain, which includes large northern areas of highlands where not many people live, has 275 people per square km.

Italy, which has mountains in the middle most of the way down, has 202 people per square km.

Yet France only has 119 people per square km. Why? I can't see obvious geographical factors, so it must be due to historical factors.

Considering the total war mentality perpetuated by the ruling parties in Japan at the time I was wondering how involved the Yakuza were in the war effort. Were there any organizations that proactively tried to assist with the empires expansion? Did the Yakuza at the time enjoy the semi legitimate status they would later gain?

Our usual way to rest or do non-mobile work is to sit on an elevated platform, chair, bench, with the shins mostly vertical, hence called straight-legged sitting. Other cultures, thinking largely in the direction of Asia, squat or sit cross-legged. (Telling, in my native Hungarian the later is called "Turkish sitting".)

Seriously it was stupid of us to do so. We lose mobility in our ankles and knees and by 40 we groan when we try to squat. Worst part is how our kind of sitting causes hyperlordosis of the lower back, with discomfort then pain.

Theirs is clearly superior. If you maintain mobility in your ankles and knees, and you can certainly see 70 years old people i.e. Thailand who seem to be able to work comfortably while squatting, you basically have a free chair with you everywhere. Pretty convenient where no chairs around. And squatting pulls the pelvis forward, preventing hyperlordosis. Same can be said about cross-legged sitting, albeit it usually requires a rug and most often also done on a pillow. But at least you don't need as much furniture and it is still good for the lower back. Japanese kneeling sitting probably the same.

​

Why did we do this? Clearly not because horses, Arabs or Persians had plenty of cavalry. I think elevated sitting was originally a status symbol, see the Roman generals foldable "throne" and then everybody else imitated it, like with pants?

I read Timothy Ryback's work 'Hitlers Private Library' awhile ago and was wondering who the political rival Hitler confronted in his early career was. Would love an answer.

[deleted]

Certain religions have alcoholic drinks as a part of their normal rituals. For example, in Judaism, every Sabbath one must recite the Kiddush, a blessing involving wine. I believe other religions also have rituals involving Alcohol. How were this rituals affected during prohibition? Were religious institutions able to get exceptions through protections in the 1st amendment?

For such an interior arrondissement, le Marais in Paris was spared from Haussmannization in the 1800s and still retains a lot of narrow, curving, Medieval streets. I can't seem to find any particular reason why it wasn't demolished and rebuilt like everywhere else, just that it was. My initial thought was that it had something to do with it being a Jewish area, maybe a poorer area, but I can't find any evidence supporting that. Thanks!