Welcome to the Frontiers, Borderlands, and Liminal Spaces AMA!

Frontiers evoke the imagination. They exist on the edge of the known, on the border of chaos, the last line of comfort from the wilds beyond. Power ebbs and flows on this ragged edge as languages, ethnicities, and empires negotiate their position over imaginary lines etched across the landscape, or sunk deep into the heart of the sea. Here, on the edge of the world, borderlands and liminal spaces allow unique insight into exerting power, resistance through conventional and unconventional means, and the lives of everday people inhabiting a changing world.

From the deep blue waters of the Pacific to the pirate coasts of the Caribbean, from the Red Sea outposts of Ancient Rome to the northwestern Ming frontier, and from the lines drawn over the Middle East to the landscapes of South Africa our panelists invite you to Ask Us Anything!

/u/Abrytan focuses on the history of the Second and Third Reichs and can answer questions about its disputed territories and borderlands.

/u/anthropology_nerd focuses on Native American demography on the northern frontier of the Spanish Empire in North America, as well as the evolving eastern borderlands during the first centuries of contact. Specific foci of interest include the Native American slave trade, epidemic disease transmission, and structural violence theory. They will be available to answer questions Friday evening and Saturday, EST.

/u/AshkenazeeYankee focuses on central and eastern Europe in the Early Modern Period, with emphasis on the experiences of ethnic and religious minority groups in the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth. They remind you that "Ukraine" literally means "border".

/u/b1uepenguin focuses on history of empire in the Pacific with an emphasis on the reorganization of space, or the attempt to bring European idea's of order and rationality to an aquatic world. Topics include the attempt to extend state authority over island chains whose oceanic borders made some many times larger than the European nations who claimed them, the creation of capital towns and cities in an attempt to direct/observe oceanic traffic, and the extension of state authority to underwater realms.

/u/CommodoreCoCo is an archaeologist working in Bolivia who studies transformations in regional and political identities. He is particularly interested in how polities throughout the Andean past have used frontier encounters with the "other" to reinforce cohesive group identify, even as those encounters generate new culture. These encounters include the borderlands between ancient Andean polities, the ongoing battles between Aymara natives and Spanish colonizers, and the attempts by early archaeologists to discover a "final frontier" of archaeology in the fledgling nation states of Peru and Bolivia.

/u/CptBuck has worked professionally as a journalist, researcher, and analyst on the contemporary Middle East. His primary historical interest is the drawing of Middle Eastern borders during and after the First World War and the effects those decisions have had down to the present. They will be available to answer questions on Saturday.

/u/depanneur looks at people who lived in liminal social spaces in early medieval Ireland such as hermits, outlaws or the mentally ill, specifically by studying Old Irish terminology for mental illness.

u/Elphinstone1842 focuses on the history of the Caribbean in the 17th century when it was a frontier of constantly warring European colonial powers, privateers/buccaneers using the conflict as a pretext to plunder, and even natives allying with or against the Spanish as it suited them. A phrase used in the 17th century summing this up—“No peace beyond the line”—referred to the impracticality of enforcing official treaties and alliances in the New World beyond the Tropic of Cancer and prime meridian so that it was essentially in a constant state of war.

/u/FlavivsAetivs Focuses on the History, Historiography, and Ethnography of the Romans, Germanics, and the Huns in the 5th Century AD and can answer questions regarding the late Roman military limes and also the Hun/Xiongnu interactions across the frontier with the Han and Ancient China, Sogdia, Bactria, and Sassanid Persia.

u/JimeDorje is an M.A. in Tibetology, specializing in the history of Tibet, Bhutan, and Buddhism in Central and South Asia and can answer questions on the religious, political, and social transformations of the Himalayan Kingdoms.

u/keyilan is a historical linguist working with undocumented language communities on the India-Burma-China border in politically contested land. As part of this work he has had to become familiar with the various insurgent groups, civil wars and migrations that arise in such perpetual frontiers these make up in the forgotten spaces between South, East and Southeast Asia. He will be answering questions about NE India, Upper Burma and South China, from the 19th century on.

/u/khosikulu specializes on land and landscape formation from the 17th to early 20th centuries in present-day South Africa, Lesotho, Botswana, and eSwatini, as well as African settler colonies generally, and can answer questions about political and social processes of colonization and cultural interaction in contested zones of Afro-European contact.

/u/lordtiandao focuses on the state's employment of officials, military officers, and soldiers and its relationship with state formation and state capacity during the Song-Yuan-Ming period. He can answer questions on the external and internal borderlands of southwest China (Yunnan, Guizhou, and Sichuan) during the Yuan, Ming, and early Qing dynasties as well as the northwestern frontier (Gansu and Xinjiang) during the Ming. They will be available to answer questions Friday afternoon and Saturday.

/u/rusoved is interested in language policy and language contact in 19th-20th century Eastern Europe, specifically in Ukraine and Macedonia. He can also speak more generally about language contact issues in the Balkan sprachbund. They will be available Saturday PDT.

/u/Steelcan909 focuses on Germanic "migratory" movements into the former Roman provinces of Britannia and Gaul, relations between Christianity and Germanic religious traditions in these areas, and Anglo-Saxon and Norse history.

/u/Tiako focuses on trade and interaction across the borders of the Roman empire, how it was affected by politics, and how it affected the societies and economies involved. Particular focus on the Red Sea.

I know that from a historical perspective it is usually more difficult to answer questions about why something didn't happen in a satisfactory manner. Nevertheless, I'm hoping to learn about potentially crucial events and people that have allowed Germany, which is largely seen as a progressive and modern nation, to retain such an archaic practice well into the 21st century.

For those who are not aware, in the German public school system, through all grades children are taught Catholic or Evangelical Christiantiy as a substantial part of their standard curriculum. For instance, in Grade 1, religion constitutes about 10% of the overall teaching time, about the same as physical education. Parents are able to opt the children out of the religion classes, but very frequently nothing is offered instead. The kids are put in a room and are told to read or do their homework.

I find this situation very strange, and would like to figure out why religion perseveres in this state in the education system.

Thanks in advance.

My impression is that, before the Elizabethan era of Shakespeare, Marlowe, Jonson and co, the dominant form of acted entertainment was morality plays, often acted by members of guilds of (non-theatrical) professions. How did English theatre get from these morality plays to the world of Shakespeare, with professional actors and a capitalist approach to the enterprise? And was this professionalisation peculiar to London, or was there a similar rise of professional theatre in other European cities, or elsewhere in England?

If newly elected President Abraham Lincoln did not intend to mess with or end slavery in the South, why did the South secede from the US and create the Confederate States of America? Was a civil war between the North and South inevitable?

Leviticus 20:13 (KJV) “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”

I am looking for an accurate description of the culture and civilization this verse was written within. This is certainly one of the most controversial bible verses of all time and I would like to know a valid, logical reason this verse ever existed.

Please, leave out personal beliefs and politics in the responses. This is only to examine the culture that produced this verse.

This is for college research.

They seem unbelievably high. Would the numbers have been this high for the entirety of human settlement on the subcontinent? Animals are usually portrayed as some innocent things getting brutalised by people but these numbers seem the other way around. What was the general attitude towards the animals that commonly attacked people? Did it vary during different time periods in India?

I was just thinking about the reasons firearms overtook bows & crossbows and realized I've never put much thought towards logistics and cost. How did the prices of ammunition & consumables compare between the two when they were both in use? Bows/crossbows obviously took arrows, but also needed strings replaced at some point (though I have no idea how long a string lasted). Firearms required things like shot, powder, and (depending on the technology of the time) slowmatch, pyrite, or flint.

I'd assume that firearms got to be cheaper to keep running as they overtook bows, but I really have no idea. Also I only threw in crossbows as well as I'm really not familiar with how much they caught on in the West before being supplanted by firearms.

[edit] I am, of course, referring to their military use.

I'm looking for examples of monumental architecture during the Dark Ages, specifically from the completion of Theodoric's mausoleum in 520 to the consecration of Aachen in 805. Monumental building appears to have been quite rare, as I cannot find any actual architectural monuments dating from this period (and this excludes buildings started during that period, as they were rebuilt over and over again and continuously enlarged). Was there any monumental building in Europe during the Dark Ages?

The Merovingians occupied much of western Europe for around 300 years and they don't appear to have constructed anything of monumental significance; most Merovingian architecture was built using perishable materials which is why very little of it survives. Is this an accurate assessment?

How common was the use of stone in building during the Dark Ages? Or was knowledge of how to build using stone and/or brick and mortar lost?

​

Given recent news that the US is now the largest oil producer in the world, I'm interested in the import/export levels historically. I know the embargo on oil exports to Japan was a factor in their decision to attack Pearl Harbour and the British and Dutch bases in South East Asia, but I also heard the US has been a big producer of oil for many decades. I also know SE Asia had other materials the US economy needed, but am a little unclear on what those were. Was it the case that US demand outstripped domestic production, or was the US not reliant on SE Asian oil?

I know there were a lot of rumors of jobs out West but why didn’t any really go East

Listening to Ghosts of the Ostfront (Hardcore History) and it definitely gives the feeling that by the time of D-Day, Soviet dominance is already being established and that victory feels inevitable. With or without allied presence in the West. Did allied planners feel that way in 1944, or were we still convinced that a French invasion was necessary in order to ensure Nazi loss?

I'm thinking about what to do for my masters. I was thinking of doing a study of the neo-Nazi presence in the punk movement, does anyone have any source material or readily available knowledge to share?

It always sort of surprises me to see highly patriarchal societies have monarchs like Catherine the Great or Elizabeth I. Did these women have to hurdle significant opposition to exercise their power, or did their right as monarch supersede their gender?

I’m not trying to offend, I’m just trying to understand what grievances creating a Palestinian state addresses that aren’t already addressed.

I’m also not trying to delve more deeply (than necessary) into Palestinians’ grievances against Israel, as I’m cognizant of Israel displacing Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as well as Israel’s heavy handed tactics in responding to Hamas (which really plays right into the hands of Hamas by damaging the reputation of Israel on a worldwide stage).

I’m also not entirely that I’m posting this in the right place, in which case I am willing to take that under advisement and post somewhere else. Thank you for your help.

I am a student of history but since I focus on early modern times my knowledge of the First World War (on an academic, source based level) is rather basic. I was trying to dive deeper into the topic since I just felt like learning more about it. During my research (that hasn't gone too far yet), I stumbled upon this YouTube Mega-Series and watched the first few videos and while they do point out their sources, I haven't found the time to check them for their accuracy and "unbiasdness". Is it a good way to get a broad overview of the topic, that can be deepened or are they heavily leaning towards specific viewpoints? I hope this isn't the wrong place to ask such a question, and I will remove it, in case you (mods) view it as inappropriate.

Some sources say it lost as much as 2/3 of its land, but I can't find any pre-1922 maps of the region.

I'm reading October by China Miéville, and a big sticking point in the historical narrative is that the Soviet wanted the Duma to take power before the revolution of the working class could ever be viable. However, Miéville never really makes clear why the Soviet was so insistent on this point, and it's deeply unclear why they even believed it in the first place.

Trotsky and Lenin tacitly repudiate this doctrine, and that repudiation seems to make more sense than the doctrine itself. And yet, the idea was so prolific.

A follow-up question: What place were the socialist intellectuals meant to have in the Communist society? Would they become integrated into the proletariat?

Was there much recorded on the short and long term effects?

So I have a history/philosophy of science class, and the professor explained that for the ancient Greeks, one one hand what was beyond the moon was considered philosophically as the domain of gods, and thus the precise and true science of mathematics was applicable (the use of maths to describe the orbits of planets); and on the other hand, it was viewed as inappropriate and of poor taste to apply maths to more down to earth science, such as medicine, biology, chemistry... And still according to my professor, it wasn't until the 17th century and Copernic that the status quo changed and that applied maths developed to what they are today.

I truly find hard to believe the idea that maths was seen as unscientific when applied to chemistry or physics before. So how true is it? (I couldn't really find helpful information on Google) Thanks in advance for the answers

Ps: sorry for potentially awful formatting, I'm on mobile, and sorry for potentially awful English, I'm not a native speaker.