I know this seems rather obscure and can vary between people. A duke would obviously have more land and power than a baron, but when people refer to a noble's land as "estates" what do they mean by this? Did they own rural farming land mostly or control businesses in the cities? Or did they get their riches from trading and have foreign estates overseas? What was the general property they owned?

[deleted]

I'm curious about where, how long ago, and why ancient humans got the notion that gods (or eventually, a God) wanted sacrifices, whether they be plants, animals, or human beings. By definition, a god would be all powerful, but why would that god demand the destruction of something precious as appeasement for some anger?

I don't subscribe to the idea that ancient cultures were necessarily "primitive" in an intellectual sense, so I don't see belief that a god wants a sacrifice as a primitive idea. This is supported by the fact that people still believe it today. (!) If your god loves you, why would that god want you to kill something? Your human father wouldn't ask you to kill your puppy to prove your love, right? (Ok, I'm digressing...) This is a complicated question posed in a space the size of a matchbook cover--hehe. Any thoughts on this? Any books that might help me understand this better? Many thanks.

I realize that it might be a kind of naive question to ask why a country did not attack another country. But wouldn't it have been a huge opportunity for the US to establish a western world order? Moreover, they could have prevented the Cold War and the current conflict in the Ukraine.

The alliance between the US and the Soviets was more of a purpose alliance. They only fought together because they thought Hitler was the greater danger. I believe that it must have been clear that, after the axis powers were beaten, there would be conflicts between the US and the Soviets.

The Cold War was so dangerous because two nuclear superpowers were facing eachother. The Soviets tested their first nuclear weapon not before 1949 though. Also, the Soviets military was weakened much more than the US military in WWII.

So I conclude that 1945, right after Germany and Japans capitulation, would have been the perfect moment for the US to attack the Soviet Union, Eluminate Communism and create a western world order. Why didn't they do it?

Were letters from Europe or European colonies shipped on merchant vessels along with cargo? Or was there a distinct postal service? And was it possible for people from the colonies to send a letter to a country other than their respective mother country (say, from post-1768 Spanish Louisiana to France and the other way around)?

Read one of the characters in DC comics tell Tim Drake, the third Robin, in his solo series, that there were five world wars (Seven Years War, World War 1 and 2, the Cold War, and the War on Terror), granted the dude was insane and turned on Tim later in the story. But, then, one of the Co-Hosts of Extra History said the same thing, in the "Articles of Confederation -- Lies" video. So, what'cha think? Was the Seven Years War a World War?

Having spent 130 hours in Assassins Creed and being a fan of history, I got the swell idea of venturing onto r/AskHistorians and posting this. I'm interested in the politics and events of Rome, ie the Punic Wars and the Triumvirates... If you have any suggestions for ancient Greek history, that'd be great too.

Thanks!

I am currently reading "The fourth crusade and the sack of Constantinople" by Jonathan Phillips. In it Phillips mentions how the Byzantine navy was at the time of the 4th crusade more or less non existent, but that roughly 30 years earlier under Manuel Comnenus the byzantines had sent a fleet of at least 150 ships to Egypt. How and why did the navy fall so rapidly in disrepair after Manuel Comnenus?

As someone who grew up in America, the idea of learning about a war in which people who may have been your parents or grandparents were horribly defeated, your homeland destroyed, government forcibly abolished, and leaders publicly tried and put to death seems utterly foreign to me. Not saying America is the best, but really the only thing I have that's close to that feeling is the Korean and Vietnam (and of course now Iraq and Afghanistan) Wars but none of those were on American soil and didn't come anywhere close to affecting the US the way WWII affected post-war Germany and Japan.

How did Germans and Japanese renounce the ideals that many of their family members (and themselves) held so fervently? To me it seems like a similar question to the classic "What happened to the ethnic Romans?" - as in, when did the people who were conquered stop being Nazis (or the aggressively Imperialist Japanese?) and start being Germans and members of the State of Japan. It seems plausible now to say, "That was 70 years ago and thus a totally different population," but the gradual process of getting there seems hard to follow.

Sorry for the long question, just always so curious to hear about how my upbringing has affected/not affected my view on the world so I can better understand others.

And I couldn't sleep last night so

I'm not an historian, but I am interested in history. I'm particularly interested in finding out about the history of my area - have you any recommendations for how I should research - how to set up a plan, what sources to check out etc?

I imagine that people would be aware of their government, their monarch (either who the King of England was at any given time or who the king of Mercia or Wessex or whatever was if this is a while ago) and the name of their town, but what else would they know of the world? Would they know that Britain is an island off the coast of the rest of Europe? Would they know that York is far to the north of London? Would they know where France, Burgundy, the HRE, Castille and Aragon are if presented a map? Would an average person (post-conquest, obviously) know that the Battle of Hastings had been fought? Would they know that the Roman Empire was from Italy, and where Italy is? Would they know about events transpiring in Russia?

Basically, what's the extent of a medieval Englishman's knowledge of the world and world affairs?

I've been watching a lot of mob movies and documentaries and the Mafia is portrayed/showed as very strong and influential, but according to Cartel documentaries, though, they were rising in power and were much more violent than the Italian Mafia were. How did these groups react to each other?

This post is probably going to come dangerously close to breaking rule 1, but I have faith in the type of discourse I usually see on this page.

Right now I am listening to the audiobook of “The Real All Americans” by Sally Jenkins. A book about the football program at the Carlisle Indian School. The founder of the school, William Pratt, had a slogan for the school, “kill the Indian, save the man”. I’ve only just started listening to this book, but I can’t help but feel that Pratt genuinely cared for the young people that got sent to his school. I feel he had a genuine interested in saving the Indian people from being completely wiped out by westward expansion. Looking back now it’s obvious that this wiping out of Indian culture was terrible Native American people’s, and it’s not hard to see that their culture is still very much at risk. I’m not arguing that re-education schools are necessary, but I am wondering if there’s any evidence to back up an idea I’ve had while listening to this book.

As terrible as these schools were for an entire race of people, and again they were awful, were they a necessary evil. Many people at the time felt that native Americans were simply to savage to be allowed to join American society. Carlisle’s football program and schools like it were able to convince people, for better or worse, that native Americans weren’t simply savages.

We’re the re-education schools a necessary evil that actually saved a people from extinction? Or did they speed up the process the death of Native American culture?

A little about me (though it would be cool if responses have broad applicability for others in a similar position):

• 25 y.o. living in Australia
• Monolingual
• Research interests: broadly, 20th Century, particularly European; my Honours thesis was a fairly theoretical consideration of how social scientists go about measuring and discussing civil wars, taking the case of 1960s Cyprus as its empirical base; continuing interest in civil wars in general.

Although my research interests are predominantly Europe-based, I only speak English, and I cannot bring myself to, for instance, move to Germany and intensively study German knowing that I may realise at the end of it that I want to study French history instead...

Thanks, and again please remove if inappropriate

My grandpa told my dad that we have a relative who lived in Jamestown in the very beginning of its existence. He had an argument with his neighbors, who accused him of stealing a pig. He subsequently had to sail back to England for his trial, was found not guilty, sailed back again and found the neighbors had claimed ownership of his house. He had to build himself a new one. Could any of this be true?