Hello! In my English class we are reading Macbeth, and our class was discussing his character change between Acts II and III. He prevaricates a lot on Duncan’s murder, yet seems cool and certain on ordering Banquo and Fleance’s murder. Our class had multiple ideas of why, such as how he now had power he didn’t want to risk losing, or because now Banquo was of lower rank now. However, I asked if people of the time believed that having a soul tainted with a sin would make one far more inclined to repeat it. I tried searching on Google, but nothing helpful came up. I’m hoping for a little support or refutation here. Thank you!

This is what my son's 6th grade history teacher is telling the kids. I'm deeply sceptical that everything suddenly turned to roses and rainbows in the years between the civil war and Jim Crowe.

Are there any good sources to point to clarify this?

I'm trying to write something smart, but honestly, I hate history. Mostly because I was guiding tourist to the museum since I was 7, and we never learned about the city history. It's because of the Polish school system when we learn from Faraons to half of the WWI every 3 years.

I recently took my SO to "the bunker" (Place on the next street, here is google maps location: 50.026725, 19.291366 street view mandatory) and remembered few of the stories my grandmother told me. I assumed they are kind of urban legends or stuff people made up to feel better and ignored it when I was a teenager. I also read a random askreddit post and someone mentioned "Monowitz", we talked a bit and I was quite interested, then forgot about it. Monowitz is the name of the village I used to live, and I never realized that this place was "Auschwitz" too.

Back to the bunker trip, we started talking, and I told my SO all the weird stories, she told me to post here for clarification or guidance where to look.

The question list:

1. The Bunker, what for, who build it, was it important, is it possible that it has a 10km tunnel under the city with hidden guns and gold? There is a German-speaking trip every year, the bust stops next to it, they watch and take photos for like a 3-4hours and disappear. Usually around 20 people.

2. Monowitz or Monowice or "Auschwitz III" what happened there? Any information on local people? I know only that my grand-grandparents were expelled from home and Germans made "shower" in there, not this Auschwitz like, the normal one if we can call anything normal here.

3. If you have any question to someone like me, not sure if it's interesting to you how the city looks like now or something, feel free to ask.

Today, you can just look things up on the internet, but back then it seems like gay-friendly environments would advertise mostly by word of mouth. If I don't want (e.g.) my coworkers to find out I'm gay, how do I go about finding the gay bars without just asking everyone?

I'm also intersted if this would be different for woman or in any other major cities of the time period.

Hello! I'm currently an undergrad that is writing a research paper on a Canadian "women's magazine" called Chatelaine. The magazine began producing since the early 1920 however for the purposes of my paper i'm sticking to a post-war time frame. The magazine itself has been hailed as one of the first feminist magazine publication in North America as its female editorial staff touched on issues of contraception, education, and careers in climate of conservative attitudes (1960s).

For my paper I wanted to talk about how the magazine seemed to only cater to white women comfortably living in the suburbs. When Canada, at the time was growing increasingly diverse in terms of race ethnicity, and class.

What I don't want to do is state the obvious...That Chatelaine only catered to white women "rouging it" in the suburbs and therefore wasn't truly "feminist".

If you know about this time period in North America, or even better Canada specifically, could you help me complicate my thesis or bring about a new angle to my topic.

Thanks guys. Hope this doesn't come off as getting someone to do my work. I just don't have anyone to bounce ideas off of. Thanks.

In Ancient Rome, the two highest political offices in the Cursus Honorum were Praetor and Consul. The minimum age for becoming a Praetor was 39, and for Consul 42. My source reads as follows:

To have held each office at the youngest possible age (suo anno, "in his year") was considered a great political success, since to miss out on a praetorship at 39 meant that one could not become consul at 42.

If Praetors served for one year, why were they not able to do so at age 40 or 41, and then serve as Consul at 42?

​

I always found it strange that how fast did the unified China fold. In fact, it feels more similar to the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Does it have something do with the administrative structure of late Qing China or with Western spheres of influence?

Also worth noting that the charge of having an alcohol lake is also attributed to the last ruler of the Xia Dynasty.

I think the history of the sport goes back far enough to make it appropriate for this sub!

I hope this question falls within the rules of this sub.

​

Most history books I read are full of maps to show where the major events being discussed take place. For example, where were the front lines on the western front in Oct 1914? Or, where was the Germany - France border in Aug 1914? How do historians know what these borders were? And once they know, how do they turn this into a graphic for their text?

​

I have a somewhat more specific question. I am collecting my great grandfather's war letters into a book to share with my family and I would like to include some maps showing where the letters were written (France and Belgium, WW1 Aug-Oct). In my day job (scientist) I am often editing other people's vector graphics to add my own annotations so I thought that maybe there was some well known historical database of open source maps that could then be edited. Otherwise, I would try and modify a modern map, but that leads me to my questions above? how do you know where the borders were?

​

thank you for your help and I apologise of this kind of question is outside the scope of this sub.

​

​

Posted this a couple of days ago and received no response, trying again!

I know that knowledge structures rarely change neatly or suddenly, but I have some understanding that most European and Euroamerican physicians and natural philosophers had rejected the gaelenic model of the human body (where the health of the body is determined by the balance of four “humors” including blood) by the mid-18th century.

Yet in my own studies I encounter “heroic” medicine full of vomits, enemas, and of course bleedings well into the 19th century. It seems like these treatments share a sort of gaelenic concern with keeping the body “in balance.” But if it isn’t humors that we’re now balancing, what is the conception of the human body that makes up the intellectual foundation for these quite extreme forms of medical treatment for sick people?

Thanks!

It's recently come up that my family is related to Robert the Bruce, King of Scots from 1306-1329. I'm hoping to do some travel sooner than later including seeing where it was he ruled and maybe connecting with distant^10 relatives. I guess how would I figure out where his rule was, where was his throne? Did he have one? This is interesting as hell to me.

Historians, art historians, archaeologists, and anthropologists of Mexico have conclusive evidence that human and child sacrifice occurred frequently in Central Mexico, but the numbers have been far exaggerated in colonial sources. Likewise, research has demonstrated that sacrifice also occurred in the Andes and Maya areas, but in all of these areas, scholars have worked to place human sacrifice in its historical, cultural, and cosmological context. As a result, we see now that human sacrifice and cannibalism are tropes that have consistently played up the exoticism, barbarity, cruelty, and inhumanity of indigenous peoples and therefore have helped to justify the subjugation and outright genocides of indigenous peoples in the Americas.

While reading an older work by John Hemming called Red Gold, I noticed a print of a head being boiled on page 24, and just the other day, I was in an anthropology museum, which contained a display of several shrunken heads. I was wondering if scholars of Brazil or the Amazon have revised our understanding of the practice of making shrunken heads in the same way that scholars have revised, contextualized, and/or obliterated myths of other "barbaric" indigenous practices. Are these items largely only a popular myth? Do we know more about these practices and their meanings? If so, what have we learned?

Hi all,

I have a methodology question for historians here:

​

In an article draft, I cite and summarise (but do not directly quote) a historical source from the late 19th century in my main text. Of course I looked up the original source (luckily available online). Now I have noticed recently that another historian briefly describes this source as well and quotes from it. Besides citing the original source, do I now also need to cite this other historian that has written about the source? Just to be clear, this is not a matter of interpretation etc. of the source, but we simply both (obviously in somewhat similar ways) summarise the content of the source.

My assumption is that I do not have to cite this historian as well, as certain important sources will always be cited by several historians and my impression is that historians normally do not tend to cite everyone else that might have mentioned/used/summarisesthe historical source. But I would still like to know what everybody here thinks.

​

Thanks!

​

My knowledge of Iberian history is pretty basic, but I know that both countries had what are generally classified as Fascist regimes before, during, and after WWII. I also know that the Nazis and Italians helped Franco to gain control during the Spanish Civil War. Why didn’t Franco return the favor during WWII? And would the entry of Spain and/or Portugal on the side of the Axis have made any kind of material difference to the outcome of the war? At the very least it would have forced the Allies to open another front, right?