Saw a history memes post where November 9 in Germany is jokingly seen as a safe answer on any question about dates on a modern germany history quiz. Everything from the end of the German monarchy in November revolution, Beer Hall Putsch, Kristalnacht, then the fall of the Berlin Wall, all November 9.

How important was the German revolutions/Vienna revolts and execution of Robert Blum on November 9 in 1948? Was that influential to the nazis? Did Hitler choose the date of the beer hall putsch specifically to draw a parallel with Blum’s execution and/or the November Revolution in 1918, or was it was just a coincidence?

And then was Kristalnacht chosen to be on the anniversary of either? And if it was, how? Wasn’t that event triggered by a Jewish person randomly shooting a Nazi?

And then it seems like they had to have made November 9 intentional for the fall of the Berlin Wall. Did they talk much about the history of the date at the time?

Also as a random aside: has there ever been much written about how Germans party and socialize and drink for a month in September and early October, sober up a bit for a few weeks and get organized for the rest of October, and then do a coup in early November? Has there been much study into the influence that Oktoberfest has had on Germans going nuts and breaking stuff in November?

One of the things that we see when magazines report about billionaire CEOs is that they will invariably mention just how hard they work, how much time they spend working. Even if they are from "old money," they are adamant that they have worked to deserve their wealth.

Reading Jane Austen, in the Regency period, it seems that having to do anything to obtain your wealth is seen as lesser, the best men have inherited it. Being in the Trades, whether it be as a lawyer, doctor, or banker, is still looked down on.

When did idleness change from a virtue to a sign that the wealth was not deserved?

I was doing some research and half of the sites I found were telling that they were heavy cavalry and other half that they were light cavalry. Wikipedia says that they were classified as heavy but at the same time telling that their job was to raid and perform shock attacks, and that seems more like light cavalry work. Maybe there are different type of hussars? Thanks for any replies.

And was it a part of general sentiment in Europe to elect a foreign noble for a monarch? It seems somehow counterintuitive in the age od romantic nationalism. ( King of the Belgians being a german prince, King of Greece being a Bavarian, King of Spain being minor Italian Prince etc.) Also, this trend seems to be unrelated to any marriage policy and blood relations.

I am writing a research paper based on Joan of Arc and I am having a hard time finding a good monograph.

Was Jesus crucified for his religious claims or political opposition to Rome?

Crucifixion seems to imply that he was executed for stirring rebellion against the Empire, but I also hear it was a Jewish internal affair in which Jesus was punished for his heretical claim to divinity despite Pontius Pilate's counter efforts to spare him, and the Bible verses commanding 'giving to Caesar what is due to Caesar' seems to demonstrate the apolitical/passifistic tone of his teaching. Although it is also said that this is a later historical revision by the Church to condemn the Jews and appeal to its Roman audience, alongside the need of creating a politically correct Christianity in the face of subsequent crackdowns.

Do we have reliable information on the political nature of Jesus' theology and his death in the first century context? Was he a passifistic preacher-shepherd, a Jewish-nationalist messianic revolutionary, or something else?

This only happens with spanish as far as I'm aware. People don't say "veroveraar" to refer to the dutch conquerors of Indonesia, no one says "Eroberung" to refer to the Nazi conquest of France, and in general english speakers don't use words from other languages to refer to the history of those places... Except with spanish, and only with things regarding the word "conquest". I have never found anyone saying "rey" instead of "king" when talking about the king of Spain for example

I find this extremely weird and a little bit annoying to be honest, and I would like to understand how and when this came to be

I’m interested in any period of Soviet history, especially 1970-1991.

Did the Soviet Union have much in the way of restaurants? How did people get a job working in a restaurant as, say, a waiter? What would a waiter be making compared to, say, a doctor or an engineer? Was it really expensive to eat in restaurants, compared to today?

During the Renaissance, heavier, wide-bladed cut-and-thrust swords were gradually replaced by thinner rapiers designed only for thrusting. Why did this shift take place?

Did the decline of armour, fuelled by the advent of firearms, make rapiers more viable? If so, how? — surely thrusting weapons like rapiers would have been better than cutting swords against armour, not worse. Or did it have something to do with better metallurgy? Stronger steel means lighter swords, which means faster hits but less chopping power, so that soon only light thrusting swords could compete for speed?

Are there any contemporary sources describing the outlook of longsword-versus-rapier fights which might shed light on why the one strategy overtook the other?

The neolithic stone axe is a bit of a mystery to me. On the one hand it looks like a heavy instrument that can clearly cut *something*, but on the other my personal experience just...throwing stones around tells me that they should have been constantly breaking apart and shattering. Since they were obviously used and ancient people wouldn't have kept producing things that were just going to break, my understanding is obviously wrong. So:

1. What were they actually used for? Could they cut down a tree, say? Or were they used for something softer?
2. Did they break a lot? If so, what was done to make them more useful?

Welcome to Tuesday Trivia!

If you are:

• a long-time reader, lurker, or inquirer who has always felt too nervous to contribute an answer
• new to /r/AskHistorians and getting a feel for the community
• Looking for feedback on how well you answer
• polishing up a flair application
• one of our amazing flairs

this thread is for you ALL!

Come share the cool stuff you love about the past!

We do not allow posts based on personal or relatives' anecdotes. Brief and short answers are allowed but MUST be properly sourced to respectable literature. All other rules also apply—no bigotry, current events, and so forth.

For this round, let’s look at: Music! Sing a song of sixpence! This week's theme is music! Would you like to teach the world .... some trivia about the history of music? This is the place!

I've been reading their accounts of Norse pagan practices and I've noticed they attest to remarkably similar things sometimes. Their accounts of Uppsala seem quite similar for example.

And basically wondering are they all completely seperate sources? Or did they read and influence each others accounts/get their information from the same sources?

I guess essentially what I'm trying to establish is how reliable their accounts are.

If they are all completely unrelated then we can probably take a lot of what their saying to be true. But if they read the same sources then it's possible it's just the perpetuation of old myths.

I'm interested in learning about Ancient Greece and their civilizations, but I also find it hard to be completely engaged due to feelings that some of this isn't necessarily relevant to me as an African individual, and I have witnessed many claims of ancient greece being relatively diverse (or atleast in terms of areas the greeks inhabited noting greek settlement of the southern mediterranean, black sea, etc.)

​

So I was wondering if we are aware of any cultural, philosophical or other contributions of these people they may have come into contact with