A similar question came up in r/history but it was all rubbish responses about cement and the survivor bias and not so much about the state of ancient math and science.

The section starts, "Once I wrote down on the empty spaces of a time-table the names of those who came to Gatsby’s house that summer. It is an old time-table now, disintegrating at its folds, and headed 'This schedule in effect July 5th, 1922.' But I can still read the gray names, and they will give you a better impression than my generalities of those who accepted Gatsby’s hospitality and paid him the subtle tribute of knowing nothing whatever about him."

Nick then goes on to mention "the Chester Beckers and the Leeches," as well as names like Bunsen, Civet, the Hornbeams, the Willie Voltaires, a whole clan named Blackbuck, the Ismays and the Chrysties, Edgar Beaver, Clarence Endive, the Cheadles, the O. R. P. Schraeders, the Stonewall Jackson Abrams of Georgia, the Fishguards, the Ripley Snells, the Dancies, S. B. Whitebait, Maurice A. Flink, the Hammerheads, Beluga, the Poles, the Mulreadys, Cecil Roebuck, Cecil Schoen, Gulick the state senator, Newton Orchid, Eckhaust, Clyde Cohen, Don S. Schwartze, Arthur McCarty, the Catlips, the Bembergs, G. Earl Muldoon, Da Fontano, Ed Legros, James B. Ferret, the De Jongs, Ernest Lilly, Gus Waize, Horace O’Donavan, Lester Meyer, George Duckweed, Francis Bull, the Chromes, the Backhyssons, the Dennickers, Russel Betty, the Corrigans, the Kellehers, the Dewars, the Scullys, S. W. Belcher, the Smirkes, the young Quinns, Henry L. Palmetto, Benny McClenahan, Faustina O’Brien, the Baedeker girls, young Brewer, Mr. Albrucksburger, Miss Haag, Ardita Fitz-Peters, Mr. P. Jewett, and Miss Claudia Hip.

I'm sure it's too much to give an extensive guide, but are there key names in there that a historian of your era must recognize, like (say) the George Clooneys, Kim Kardashians, and Chris Christies of our day? Is there some theme that Fitzgerald is trying to get across in the types of people he lists?

Edit: I'm not sure why this was flair'd as "China," apologies for that and mods please let me know if I should resubmit.

A statement such as being "par for the course" isn't going to make any sense to future historians unless they understand Golf.

There are weirder ones like "a different kettle of fish" which if encountered in an ancient text wouldn't make any sense.

How do we figure these out?

Are there any interesting idioms from history?

Hey all! I'm really hoping to be able to get some useful input, or good resources, here. A little background: I graduated last year with a B.A in history. I'm now in grad school working on my masters. I'm in a liberal studies program (not specifically history), at a very prestigious school (I say this not to stroke my ego, but to further illustrate my anxieties around this current project), and this project is for an oral history course. Now, I hate to sound judgmental, but I'm not sure my professor is an actual oral historian, or historian at all (he's written a ton of oral histories, but I think his degrees are in journalism, not history), and he hasn't given us any direction in conducting our interviews (none of the students have a history background, as this isn't a class in a history program. I'm the only student with a degree in history). A lot of the stuff he has said, or has shown us, or just referenced generally, goes against what I remember learning as an undergrad, as far as oral histories go. We haven't discussed any of the nuances, details, or really anything, regarding oral history, so I'm starting to get a bit worried. We were told we should have done at least one of our interviews by our next class (thursday), despite the fact that (according to the syllabus), next class is when we'll discuss how to do interviews. The professor is an older gentlemen, and thus far, has really only given us advice pertaining to using "technology," properly for the interviews (this advice is quite dated lol). So I'm hoping to get some pointers, or directed to some useful resources, regarding methodologies and techniques that would be useful in properly conducting the interviews, and how to get the story I'm looking for. I also thought I'd need some advice on how to do the writing, but the examples we've been given thus far are basically transcripts (in other words, the author didn't really write anything original. Their oral history is quite literally just writing down what their subjects said, with no additional commentary), so I guess I'm all set on that front. Thanks in advance for any tips!

​

I was reading a book about house care from the 60 and, the author, while listing monthly household expenses mentioned "radio expenses".

So I've recently watched this documentary, focusing on the discussion of whether King Arthur was real or not and inevitably mentioning the context of the period he was supposedly from, the Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain. The presenter of the documentary concludes that according to archaeology, there probably wasn't an invasion as such told by Gadis and Geoffrey of Monmouth but more of a cultural migration since there was more evidence for the latter than the former. But then how is it today that the idea of the Anglo-Saxon "invasion" is so popular, even to be taught as fact in school (was for me anyway) when there is seemingly better/more evidence of the contrary?

From my knowledge, the high level contours of Japan's imperial ambitions in the early 20th century were to secure resources for the metropole and create buffers between themselves and European powers. But when I read up on the prelude to the Second Sino-Japanese war, I see a chain of incidents and I don't see how they all connect.

Mainly, what did they actually want, in the long term, from China? What was the goal? Did they seek to annex portions of the country? Install a friendly government? Was it a coherent plan, as it sometimes seems like the IJA is just winging the war as they go along. And, had they won, did they think they could control a massive China given their relative population size? Was the military and political leadership thinking that far ahead?

I'm not asking for a counterfactual--I'm interested in what members of the Japanese government and intellectuals viewed as feasible goals, and if that changed as the Second Sino-Japanese war blurred into WWII.

I have (I’ve forgotten the provenance) an Iron Cross medal, with 1870 stamped on it, that is maybe a cm square. It’s unlike any other I’ve seen, due to its size and it only having one face (as opposed to the ones I’ve seen that are black on both sides). Is there any way to verify its authenticity? Has anyone heard of these medals being awarded in this size?

Was he a shrewd politician who picked up on a common idea at the time? Was he a true believer who brought his message to the people?

I’m currently doing some writing on a character who lived in Romania (in the Carpathian Mountains, respectively) from about 850 BCE to about 800 BCE. From what little I have been able to research on my own, I believe that this would be categorized as the “Urnfield Culture” period, and reading about that has been helpful because this character was heavily involved in the ritual sacrifice aspect of the culture, though even then its difficult to find work that really digs into the details of what that all entailed.

I basically want to know as much as humanly possible about this region, its people, customs, religion,military and day to day life during this time, but every time I search for something I can only ever find writings, at the earliest, from well into the CEs. I know its a difficult period to pin down specifics about, seeing as how they didn’t leave any written records that we know of (or at least, that I know of that we know of), but any help that can be given or any sources I might be able to refer to would be greatly appreciated.

The character is from an existing work, but a few writers/artists along with myself are planning on expanding his narrative and looking into his canonical origin. Here’s what we DO know about him from the preexisting canon:

1. His name is Anglo-Saxon in origin, but there’s practically nothing that exists on Proto-Indo-European languages, so figuring out how someone born in the southeastern-ish mountains would have a name originating from a language of the north at the time he was born is a real puzzle.
2. His bringing up was largely based in Druidic teaching/training, as well as Sun worshipping, but every source we can find on ancient Druids don’t date back that far, and we’re wondering if perhaps it was, for that particular region at least, rooted in the Sun cult religion of the time and then evolved into Druidism as it was later on?
3. He was likely a slave for a fair portion of his life.
4. Whether or not he would’ve had a family is uncertain, but something we’re willing to possibly explore if we knew more about the dynamics of that part of society.
5. He lived well into his 40s, which at the time was of course considered quite old.

Those are the essential bits we’re using to form this narrative, and thus the bits we need the most info on, but as I said earlier, literally ANYTHING on that 50 year period and/or anything preceding it that may have effected the conditions around that period would be massively appreciated.

Thank you! Please let me know if I can help clear anything up. :)

In every Western film you can see the typical "Wanted" poster with information about the fugitive, as well as signs at the entrance of towns, warning foreigners about all the awful things that will happen to them if they break the law. In real life, what chances were that regular people, including criminals, could read all this signs?

I just finished reading 'Sapiens'. In the book, Harari mentions multiple times that "An ancient script was discovered and we came to know stuff about the civilization that lived in 2000 BCE"

How is this done? The last person who spoke 'language X' died 2000 years ago, we discover this new text now, how exactly do we know the semantics of the language? The grammar, the meaning of the words and letters?

​

[deleted]

I'm under the impression that their end was caused by cannons and line-of-battle tactics in the early modern period (Spanish Armarda) but did more conservative shipbuilders continue to use the architecture or was it a rapid shift as nations raced to have fast, stable ships?

I'm curious about how a master's relationship with a slave differed between the city and the country in Ancient Rome and why it differed. Also, my son was asking about if country slaves could get manumission, and I wasn't sure. Any answers of either of these questions would be greatly appreciated

When was baby formula invented?

Before formula was invented, how did poor families feed babies if the mother experienced some sort of health issue that stopped her from breastfeeding?

I remember reading that many thought the world was ending, but I wanted to know the general views of most Germans.