I was reading how Galileo's discovery of bodies orbiting Jupiter was the catalyst for the realisation that the "fact" that the Sun and moon seem to be orbiting the Earth, doesn't necessarily have to imply that we're the center of the Universe. Galileo observed this between January 7 and March 2, 1610, and published this is in his essay "The Starry Messenger" that same month. However, in that very same essay he casually mentions Venus' and Mercury's orbits of the Sun.

​

So which discovery was it then? Which was the first proof of a body orbiting something else? The moons of Jupiter orbiting Jupiter or Venus and Mercury orbiting the Sun? And why are we all attributing the start of the change from a geocentric to a heliocentric view to his discovery of Jupiter's moons, rather than his(?) discovery of Venus and Mercury's orbits around the Sun?

​

Excerpts from "The Starry Messenger" where he casually mentions Venus and Mercury's orbit of the sun:

​

> But that which will excite the greatest astonishment by far, and which indeed especially moved me to call the attention of all astronomers and philosophers, is this, namely, that I have discovered Four Erratic Stars, neither known nor observed by any one of the astronomers before my time, which have their revolutions round a certain bright star, one of those previously known, like Venus and Mercury round the Sun, and are sometimes in front of it, sometimes behind it, though they never depan from it beyond certain limits.

​

(Note: "Four Erratic Stars" refers to the four bodies he saw orbiting Jupiter, and "a certain bright star" to Jupiter)

​

> I therefore concluded, and decided unhesitatingly, that there are three stars in the heavens moving about Jupiter, as Venus and Mercury round the Sun; which at length was established as clear as daylight by numerous other subsequent observations. These observations also established that there are not only three, but four, erratic sidereal bodies performing their revolutions round Jupiter, observations of whose changes of position made with more exactness on succeeding nights the following account will supply

​

Thank you.

​

edit: I can't seem to figure out how to put those excerpts into quotes, so I've put them in italics for now.

Essentially, what does the thesis get right about decline in the Ottoman empire in the short term after Suleiman I's rule? Are there any modern proponents of the theory?

Movies and shows, especially Rome, paint these two as "coworkers" and best friends. What evidence do we have to support or not support this?

Did they mostly just listen to lectures and engage in debates or did they also have to take exams, write papers, etc with the possibility of failing? If so, what was the grading system they had and what kind of academic policies did they have as far as plagiarism and attendance?

I was wondering why most of eastern Russia, particularly central Russia, Siberia and the far east, lacks cities and civilizations as opposed to the western part of Russia.

We always hear news about Moscow and that is what most people think when they think of Russian cities. As far as Geography goes, there is so much land, trees, rivers, lakes and other natural formations that could be fitting for civilization. Why wasn't this part of Russia as colonized as the western part?

Thanks!

I saw this mentioned in the rules.

As such, we do not allow questions which pose possible privacy issues for living, or recently deceased, persons who are not in the public eye. The cut-off for "recent" is 100 years, but even if a question does not meet the exact criteria above, we may remove at moderator discretion if we believe there nevertheless remains certain privacy concerns.

But this struck me more as a subreddit rule out of concern for the living and not necessarily your view as historians. I was hoping to get some expansion on this and perhaps a variety of perspectives.

Is this chiefly out of concern for the living? Do you feel that the dead are owed certain degrees of privacy? If so does this right wane over time? Should some gatekeeping exist for people "not in the public eye?" Is there any kind of consensus among historians on privacy rights of the dead? Anything you want to say about this subject would be appreciated.

Thanks

Genuinely curious how so many call us (America) a christian Nation but we were so barbaric when we came here. Would love a historian viewpoint on this.

And as a secondary question, how exactly did Harold Godwinson become King of England?

Trying to understand why military revolts happened. Since if they did not have to be in Force Publique, they could leave if they didn’t like it.

... if they were forced then revolts make sense

The incompetence and complete military failure of the Italian military in WW2 is often discussed. Was this an expected outcome amongst global statesmen and diplomats, or did Italy's impotence take them by surprise?

Were there permanent mercenary bands or were they only temporary organised to fight in single wars?

I am wondering if they would experience less symptoms of PTSD due to growing up training to be warriors, and having war more deeply engrained in the culture than in American culture.

Was it always like this, or were other color at one point associated with the ideology?

...or is this a uniquely modern phenomenon?

According to both books by Beevor, 11th Panzer were 9 miles from Stalingrad which didn't have a single Soviet troop stationed there on the 3rd August but didn't drive into the city as they didn't realise its strategic importance and was ordered to help drive south into the Caucus and Stalingrad was left to 76th Infantry division of 6th Army which took 2 weeks to fully deploy there.

​

How accurate is this claim? Can someone verify?

I'm very curious could the NSDAP Simply Order the military around then call them to guard them? or could the military tell them to stop and let the NSDAP Walk off......... it's the question of how powerful was the NSDAP in general.