I'm currently playing Empire Total War. It's a strategy game set in the 18th century. I noticed that, although France and Britain own a big part of land in North America, a faction called 'Louisiana' has a few cities of his own. Is this historically inaccurate?

My understanding of camps such as Treblinka is that they were totally created in order to exterminate the people being sent there. Even at Auschwitz, weaker inmates seem to have been murdered immediately. Given this, what was the logic in creating as much paperwork as they did - assigning inmate numbers etc? In a very small sense it seems fortunate that they did, as it meant people were able to find the fate of their relatives after the war.

My history teacher didn’t know the answer. I ask this because I thought of it at 3am after thinking about ww1

What sorts of things would a common person want to buy with new found wealth? What was the British 1700 equivalent of large televisions, expensive children's toys and yachts?

Welcome to Monday Methods, our bi-weekly feature for discussing theory, methodology and conceptual concepts in the field of history!

Tomorrow is International Labor Day, so happy labor day everyone!

Fitting this occasion, I thought it a good opportunity to discuss labor history resp. its parent social history. Social History is an approach noted for its often quantitative approach (looking at the historical development of bread prices, wages and so forth) in order to focus on such phenomena as classes and movements, urbanization and industrialization, family and education, work and leisure, mobility, inequality, conflicts and revolutions, while emphasizing structures over actors.

For discussion, questions would include have you used this approach or other experiences with it? What problems and advantages does such an approach hold? Should the historical field at large, now that actors are more at the center of inquiry, reevaluate social history and its emphasize on structure?

The Theme system that replaced the older provincial one is often lauded as a reform that allowed the ERE to recover after the Slavic and Muslim invasions. What problems, in particular, did it aim to solve, and was it successful in doing so?

I’m very ignorant when it comes to this topic, so don’t think I’m trying to prove a point here.

I was reading about James Macpherson and his “Ossian”, which to my understanding, he tried to pass off as authentic Gaelic mythology he discovered from ancient sources. It was proved to be a fabrication.

It got me wondering, how do we know that Snorri Sturluson didn’t do the same in his time in regards to Norse mythology. My understanding is that he is basically our only source for many ancient Norse myths.

I realize I’m probably way off base here, so please be gentle!

I'd like to read up a bit on monetary lending practices in the 19th century, particularly the first half. My question is motivated in part by genealogy, where I've noticed two generations of my family deed land "by mortgage," for what I now assume to mean "I borrow this cash from you, shall pay you back on these terms, and offer this defined tract of land as collateral." Am I on the right track here?

What is especially interesting, as I look through old deed books, is the prevalence of foreclosure in Maine just prior to the Panic of 1857. The crazy thing to consider is that the failure-to-repay borrower was oftentimes letting go of defined land on the very premise they lived -- i.e. your 100 acres is now 50, and this person who lend money is now the legal owner of the other half. That seems awfully awkward to me.

In these foreclosure cases, I've also been intrigued by the amount of pubic resources that get involved; court-issued arrest warrants involving ordered public announcements in surrounding counties, mandated appraisals of estate (in Maine, three appraisals were ordered for every foreclosure I found), involvement by sheriffs and their deputies, Justice of Peace, attorney of the lender, etc. etc.

Situations where I notice this most frequently, unfortunately, are in the mid 19th Century, particularly in situations cases whereby the defaulted loan involved land collateral which had been inherited from relatives, but later abandoned in order to pursue opportunity across state lines.

I find the topic rather interesting because in so many instances, the monetary lender seems to have been a trusted friend or business associate. Would enjoy learning more this. Thanks!

I would love to study WW1, WW2, Cold War, Korean War, and Vietnam War; however, I dont know of any good in depth books on each war. Im looking for books on each war or even in depth ones like textbooks. Specific names please.

In a youtube debate I watched recently, a man said that "we know more about Jesus than any other character in antiquity." Is this true?

Can anyone tell me what government organization(s) of the GDR was responsible for creating and distributing propaganda? Usually states have a specific division for that, such as the "Committee on Public Information" in the US, or the "Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda" in Nazi Germany. However, I can't seem to find a specific department in the GDR responsible for regulating public information/propaganda.

[deleted]

This is for homework, so please just links and references only thank you.

I've read a few accounts of Roman slaves saving money and buying their freedom. How did that work? I assume slaves generally didn't get paid for their activities, so how did they save enough? Likewise, how was their price decided upon. I assume a master could refuse to "sell" their slave and give them their freedom.

I've run across several ballads recently about African Americans escaping slavery by crossing into Union held territory. Obviously this must have happened, but was it really that common? For example The Steeldrivers, "Can You Run?", Rhiannon Giddens "Julie". It certainly makes a compelling narrative for a story, but was the reality different?