Since one of the reasons many perpetrators of school shootings do what they do is social ostracism/bullying etc., something that I don’t think didn’t exist in the past, were there any such incidents of people who just snap one day and kill their peers in pre-modern education systems? Or even institutions like guilds, training camps, etc.

“School shootings” are completely alien to me. I’m trying to understand where do they come from historically, how they developed initially, how events turned into a phenomenon etc.

Hi all,

I remember learning in high school that ancient merchants used to carry some kind of stone to check coins to make sure they we authentic by rubbing the stone on the coin. What was this process called? And how did it work? I cannot remember and am fascinated by it.

Thanks!

My understanding is that some of Aeneas's story predates Vergil's writing (including the notion that Aeneas was a proto-founder of Rome), but do we know to what extent Vergil created new events/encounters within the poem to serve his purposes (thematic, political, etc.)? Put another way: how did the Aeneid shape Romans' later understanding of the foundation of their city?

Anything from websites to books to documentaries are welcome! I'm aware I'm casting a wide net here, but I'd love some help. I'm really interested in the whole era in general, but I'd love to focus more on the cultural/social side of things.

Charlemagne was already King of the Franks and already controlled the lands of what later became known (or maybe was already known?) as the Carolingian Empire. It doesn't seem like the pope's coronation really changed anything about his sovereignty. Was it just entirely ceremonial? Did he gain any additional territories with this coronation, or was it just the pope wanting to restore the Roman Emperor title in the west, especially because of the female Empress Irene in the east?

I guess my main question is this: he became emperor of...what? The Holy Roman Empire didn't exist until he was chosen as its leader. How do you become emperor of something that didn't exist? And if the answer is the Carolingian Empire...he was already king of that, so what change did being crowned emperor bring, if any? It is really starting to seem completely ceremonial to me.

I apologize if this has been asked before. If anyone has a link to a previous discussion about this, please drop it here and send me on my way.

I'm reading Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz's An Indigenous Peoples' History of the United States. The author makes repeated reference to the oral histories of various North American First Nations (I apologize if that terminology is incorrect; I'm just trying to avoid the term "Indians"). I understand that these are important to the various nations because this is how lore and knowledge is traditionally passed down, but how reliable are they, from a historiographical standpoint? Do they carry the same weight for academics and researchers that written primary sources would? If so, how are they verified?

ETA that I'm not belittling or discounting oral histories in any way. I've seen numerous stories about how oral histories have confirmed events that have been found in the geologic record, such as earthquakes and tsunamis in the Pacific Northwest, or as someone mentioned in a (now-deleted?) comment, the wreck of HMS Terror was finally located thanks to oral histories of the Inuit. I even read somewhere that they're being used to devise better forest management techniques, so we can more effectively combat forest fires. Oral histories have a lot of merit.

My question has to do with their use as references in historical research. Are they given the same weight as written sources? Or do they need to be corroborated by written sources before they can be used as a viable research reference?

I would like to gain an understanding on the history of Great Britain, and more specifically on the relationship between the nations leading up to and during this period.

I’m interested in the historical reasons for some of the friction between the nations that have led to things like the split between Northern and Southern Ireland, the movement for Scottish independence and so forth. I’ve had a look on the recommend book list but they seem a too focused on particular period/issue for what I’m looking for (although perhaps I may need more than one book?). Therefore please can you recommend me a book to tackle this topic?

Sorry if this isnt specific enough or too broad a time scale, I dont know much about history

I'd like to learn more about the history of US citizenship. I know some basics like what the laws were under the Articles of Confederation, after the 1791 law, efforts to remove citizenship from Black Americans pre and post 14th Amendment, how different laws were applied to groups like AmeriIndians, Chinese, and the various other Asian immigrants, and people in US territories, protectorates, etc.

It'd be nice if there was a big specific book on the topic, but I'm happy to read a bunch of more focused things.

So here's Agamben's original quote from Homo Sacer.

"The crimes that, according to the original sources, merit sacratio (such as terminum exarare, the cancellation of borders; verberatio parentis, the violence of the son against the parent; or the swindling of a client by a counsel." (2017, p.72)

So I became interested in why "cancellation of borders" is such a crime, and more importantly, who could commit such crimes besides the land surveyors? I had a hard time identifying with Agamben's original sources (I don't know Latin, by the way), do any classicists have a clue? Thank you in advance!

I'm currently learning biology at my school, and Gregor Mendel is a name I'm very familiar with. But I've just learned today that his Inheritance Theory wasn't accepted at first by scientists of the 1800s. I've also heard that it was only accepted 16 years after he died, and now my question is, why did scientists during Mendel's time not accept his Inheritance Theory?

Also, does this depend on whether a person was richer or poorer and when did the transition from parchment to paper take place?

Would for examples Offa of Mercia care or even know about Charlemagne's war against Widukind? Would he be outraged? Or would he Celebrate the Christianization of these "heathens" and distance himself from them?

Panel members from r/AskHistorians and r/AskBibleScholars are here to take your questions regarding religious history and reception history.

Currently Aymara people is seen as virtuous and rightful people who were corrupted by the Spaniards. Clearly this is the worst kind of revisionism, during a lecture with a teacher he mentioned that: "they were actually violent people, in fact so violent that they were ostracized by other groups thus they became merchants because were unwelcome in any other trade". He did not mention his source because it was just an example for certain topic.

But I don't know how accurate that portray may be, I think it has some true, one of the reasons I have for that is the fact that there is no Aymara word for "embassy". Instead, they say "Jacha Uta " which translates to "Large house" or they simply use the Spanish word "Embajada". As I see it this shows they were not really keen to diplomacy unlike the Incas who did had a word in qichua for such institution.

So, I wonder what were Aymaras like before the colonization, I know they were rebel and unwilling to be subjugated by the Incas, but were they as violent as my that teacher suggested?

First of all, I wanted to preface that I k ow this could very easily dwell into emotionally charged, sensitive territory. I’m asking out of pure curiosity and have no bad motivations behind this questions.

I can’t remember where I read it, but I recall reading something about Spain’s policy of treating indigenous peoples of South America was much different that England’s. Such as the Spanish were more open to integration of Europeans and Indigenous peoples as opposed to Englands more…slash-and-burn practices…. That could be complete bonk for all I know. But two European super powers (of the time) colonized much of the americas with very different results. The majority of USA and Canada’s (anglophone countries, except Quebec, sorry!) majority population are white skinned and with ancestry from Europe while the countries from Mexico south have people with darker skin and mixed ancestry of Europe and Indigenous peoples.

What were the ideologies and events that led to our modern day populations being who they are? Were Spanish more open to other cultures and English more closed off to all but their own?

Thanks in advance!