A common theme hammered upon by the medievalists of our find subreddit is that the concept of "feudalism" is wrong - "feudalism doesn't real" - and that the term has mostly been abandoned by medievalists. But even in fairly recent academic publications I still see it used by non-medievalists. For someone writing about the 20th century and mentioning it as an aside, that might just represent the fact they aren't plugged into current streams of medieval scholarship, but one place where it seems to still be a term of use, and an impactful one at that, is scholarship which discusses European statebuilding and the centralization of power in the early modern period with local leadership losing power i.e. discussing it as a movement away from the decentralized feudal system which featured weak central leadership and comparatively stronger, local leadership who owed nominal allegiance to that central leader.

So in short, my question is how should we understand this transition, and how should we understand the term "feudalism", when discussing the early modern period as a contrast with the political structures and organization of the medieval period.

Bonus question: The other place it still seems pretty popular is in medieval *military* history. Are the MilHist medievalists just behind the times, or are they less concerned about the terms applicability in a strictly military conceptualization as opposed to a socio-political?

These being two of the world's largest cities what was sex (hookup) culture like comparing between the genders and cultures at this time?

I'm watching Lord of the rings (which I know is supper accurate) and how the orc arrows shoot through the Gondorian armor like its nothing. Does a real life set of armor stop arrows well or do they cut through pretty easily?

I would like to know more about the fusion of Hellenistic Polytheism and Buddhism which occurred in the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom, one of the states formed in the era after Alexander the Great's death. I have searched for some online, but most simply touch on the kingdom itself and not the religion. If anyone knows of such a book I would be very appreciative.

[deleted]

I Love Lucy contains what might be considered an interracial couple (obviously though race is not a scientific concept and is entirely a cultural invention), with Lucy a white of British descent and her husband Rickie a Cuban. Was this controversial in its time? I know Cuba is weird as there is a stark racial divide on the island between whites and afro-Cubans and there are few mestizo peoples because of the genocide of the island's native populations. Was Ricky simply considered white by America's standards of the time? Were there any protests against the show's depiction of a family of mixed culture?

When I look at what happened in Cambodia, I notice it is different than the Holocaust or the Rwandan genocide in that in those cases it was one group killing another group, where in Cambodia it was one group killing themselves. Is this a fair assumption or am I missing something.

Say, how much would it cost for someone to live alone in the 60's in San Fran?

Not much is known about the Sea People but in terms of dating many ancient texts and similar about the Trojan war have been dated to the estimated time that the Sea People where roaming around.

?*

I've been studying a lot about WWI and am often surprised by the casualty numbers. I understand that once the battle were on open ground tanks and aircraft were very good at breaking defenses.

My main question is why invasions like Normandy and the amphibious assaults in the pacific, were so successful for the allies. They often suffered heavy casualties, but nothing compared to what battles like this in the previous war. When landing on the beaches the troops wouldn't have the tanks available to help them break the machine guns and artillery, which would have been prepared for these landings. What sort of tactics did they use to not get slaughtered in the same way troops did 20 years before?

What is the oldest recognized language in history?

Is there a common ancestor to Indo-European languages and other languages?

According to Google, 30ish percent of Americans owned slaves. But were they all evil? Could some of them treated their slaves well?

I realise there is no way to ethically own a slave, but if slavery is happening and you cannot stop it, isn't owning a slave and treating them well better than letting rhat slave be bought by someone who might treat them badly?

Were 30% of Americans pure evil? Or were some just trying to do what was right but had to operate within certain perameters?

I'm curious about the facts behind the figures.

Hello all, I'm dipping my toes back into the history of the French Revolution after a lengthy hiatus, I guess about ten years since I first studied Modern European History in high school. Right off the bat in reading about Marat this struck me as odd. Wouldn't he want the prisoners to join the revolution? I'm sure as I continue reading I'll get more context and understanding, but this is one of those little brain splinters that I need an answer to asap or it'll bug me all day.

Thanks in advance to everyone in this community!

In the period drama film Phantom Thread, Daniel Day-Lewis’ persnickety British couturier Reynolds Woodcock refers to himself as a “confirmed bachelor” in 1950s-era Britain. When was this term first used, and was it always used to refer to a closeted gay man?

I realize that this is a large group of diverse communities, but I'm interested in the different methods used. If there is specific information on the Iroquois, that would be appreciated.

Hey great people of the internet, i know your knowledge is fast so i am hoping to exploit that. i am looking for diaries that described daily life in the 16/1900. no great leaders i have read those i am looking for diaries from soldiers or the any man. i only know Dutch and English so would prefer English. i am interested in anything from war to daily life as a settler i just want it to be descriptive. thanks a bunch guys and gals.

So, I've been researching my genealogy and I have discovered something interesting and am a bit confused? I have been researching my line of male ancestors. I am doing this by their first name and last name as we have 6 generations I can find online with the same name. But, when I got to the 6th generation I hit a wall, but on one of the listings of the sons of my ancestor he has his mothers surname,(McRae) as his first name and his fathers last name as his regular surname. But, my first name is also a surname. So, I was wondering if this was a thing in scotland to name a son after the mothers surname.