In Federalist No. 22, Hamilton writes, "And in Sweden the parties were alternately bought by France and England in so barefaced and notorious a manner that it excited universal disgust in the nation, and was a principal cause that the most limited monarch in Europe, in a single day, without tumult, violence, or opposition, became one of the most absolute and uncontrolled." What is he talking about?

Edit - made up the crew. Auto correct messed up a word in the title.

So I was just listening to the latest Dan Carlin podcast (yes, he isn't a historian. No he isn't always completely factual, hence me asking a question here).

He was talking about the Indianapolis and how in the pre-Jaws world sharks were not something people knew a whole lot about and he claimed the navy even downplayed how dangerous they were for moral reasons.

So I guess my question(s) is - how were sharks perceived? Were they mysterious and unknown? Did people see them in aquariums growing up? I watched shark week every summer my entire life and just know about them. Did people back then know things about them? Would I be clueless about them if I didn't grow up near a beach?

If I was faced with a shark attack the way they did would I be thinking sharks or were these basically mythical sea monsters I've heard about attacking?

Hello historians,

This question's been on my mind for a while now, so I thought I'd ask about here. Gavrilo Princip, the dude who shot Archduke Franz Ferdinand, belonged to the revolutionary group Young Bosnia. As I understand, this group had two wings, one which was Yugoslavist (unification of all Slavs into a Yugoslavia), and another which was Pan-Serb (unification into the already existing Serbia). While Princip was a Bosnian Serb himself, I can't find if he was belonged to the Yugoslav wing, or the Pan-Serb one. Is this known?

Thanks, historians.

Heated debate with fellow YouTuber trying to tell me a game with Vikings in it isn't realistic because of their basic cloth outfits rather than chain mail gear (which some do have in the game such that of helmets and shields)

I know that a lot of the work in Reconstruction was undone after 1877, but why pass a blanket ban on Confederates holding office and then write a blanket amnesty four years later?

I was thinking about how hard it must be to shoot something down a relatively small target that's flying zo high from the ground without modern targeting systems. Especially later in the war when bombers could be effective from increasingly higher altitudes and flew increasingly more fast. I once read somewhere that during the Blitz the German bombers quickly flew way too high for British AA guns to hit, and the only danger for them was the often slow to mobilise RAF fighters. Was AA really just for show or was it a real danger for bombing crews?

So I’m new to this reddit, and I came here to ask some questions that hopefully someone knows. My dad wants to get a tattoo, and he’s in love with the Vikings TV show, so he wants to get a Viking tattoo. He wants to put 2004 and 2007 on his arms, but we’ve been googling about the Viking numbers and each one is different, so I don’t know which is correct. If anyone can help, that will make my day.

While studying European Fascism as an undergrad a decade ago one of my professors put forward his view that the western powers infamous policy of 'Appeasement' was actually active support for the Nazi regime rather than concessions to keep the peace.

His argument was that Britain/France saw a strong Germany as a bulwark against communism and thus gave Hitler free reign to rearm and begin interfering in the East, hoping that eventually his aggression would lead to a war with the USSR that Britain/France could watch from the sidelines.

He reinforced his argument by pointing out that the allies eventual intervention in defense of Poland came about only after the Nazis and Soviets had a agreed a non-aggression pact. Realizing their plan to play the Nazis and Communists off against each other had failed was the difference between the Czech annexation in March and the Poland invasion in September.

I find it an interesting way to re-frame the prewar period, but one at odds with the widely taught narrative of appeasement (they gave concessions because they had no will fight after WW1, they were too soft and Hitler took advantage, moral of the story is don't negotiate with aggressive powers).

Knowing the general political leaning of this professor (fairly radical left, and I say that as someone with a fairly left wing outlook) gave me a healthy skepticism of his framing of the capitalists/fascists being in cahoots against the communists. But his argument doesn't seem unreasonable, after all Allied troops had intervened in the Russian civil war less than 20 years before and the West clearly regarded communism as a major threat.

Is there a strong case to view 'Appeasement' as 'Support'?

I know urbanization decreased with the fall of the Western Roman Empire and urban centers were abandoned, but cultivation didn't cease and the areas re-urbanized in later centuries. In the southern Maya lowlands, the former urban centers are still jungle and cultivation never resumed - at least on anything approaching its previous scale, the Maya that still inhabited the region were hunter-gatherers other than (I believe) the Itza who were Yucatec Maya that immigrated to the region well after the Classical period.

I’ve been listening to “The Fall of Rome” podcast by Patrick Wyman, and he repeatedly has said that one of the things we see with collapse of the western Roman Empire is a decline in stoneworking in Northern Europe. I always picture the Dark Ages (and all of the “Medieval Period”) to be one of huge stone castles and churches. So Did this really happen, and if so Why and When? And when do we see the return of large stone buildings in Northern Europe?

So, I've gotten back into horse riding again and something came into my mind. What riding style would late cavalry (19th to 20th century) utilize to fight (most importantly, charge with a sword in one hand, reigns in the other). Was it very different for each army?

The naming system of "John, son of William, son of Thomas", carried a lot of information in John's village. Because people could identify him as the son of William and grandson of Thomas, distinguishing him from the other Johns. But James Scott (1998) argues, as time progresses and government is more centralized, this naming system has less use to central government, which did not know William or Thomas. Thus the last name system is born, using their village name as a last name.

Far before that though, before centralization of the government, people in late antique already identify themselves with their village or city they're born instead of using long patronym. Why? Does this imply Roman Empire was more centralized?