I realise that today, acronyms make up a huge section of our vocabulary, especially in technical and beaurocratic language.

So I was wondering when the idea of shortening a long phrase or name to a collection of letters that are pronounced phonetically first gain widespread acceptance? It feels like something I've never been exposed to in any historical texts but it's abundant now.

Hey guys. Sorry if this is the wrong subreddit for this question. I know that Japans did not really produce much oil. Probably 90% of their oil was imported from other countries. So when the US put the embargo on Japan, was that decision the reason as to why Japan attacked Pearl Harbor? and why did they also attack malaysia and the Dutch Indies?? Thank you guys! you da bomb!

Hey so I'm an aspiring teacher and I want to make history fun for my students when I eventually get a job.

I was recently in traduced to the old (1959) board game of diplomacy. Which if you don't feel like looking it up is just a simplified version of Risk.

The point of the game is that no army is stronger than the other so each player or team of players representing a country (which by the way the game takes place in the years before WW1 in Europe ) has to use Diplomacy (roll credits) to win the game as an alliance or backstabbing the group and winning by yourself.

Winning requires owning more than half of the "Supply centers" on the board through military conquest.

So basically if any of you have done this before how did you do it and how would you fix it from when you ran it?

Much appreciated!!

I don't know much about the history of how coffee was prepared by older cultures and historic Europeans, but did they experience jitters like we can today with coffee? Were they aware of the connection, and did they try anything to prevent jitters? I'm just in a coffee shop now and curious about how coffee jitters were regarded in everyday culture in days of yore. Thanks!

I've been recently reading about the fall of Rome and understand that it was largely brought about by various barbarian tribes sweeping across Europe and settling in the various different regions, eventually leading to the Visigoths sacking Rome.

I also understand that many of these barbarian tribes after they settled the land lived in small farming villages and had very few large towns.

My question is, what happened to the populations of the Roman cities around this time? Did they carry on inhabiting the cities as normal and just swear fealty to these new kings, or did they abandon the cities largely?

The example that springs to mind is of a typical Roman family living in a Roman city in Gaul around the time that Clovis established the Frankish kingdom.

What was the social relationship like between the settlers in Jamestown, VA and pilgrims in Plymouth, MA? Did John Smith and William Bradford know or know of each other? Do we know what the groups thought of each other? Were they interested in communicating or did their separate missions keep them purposely isolated?

I have always had an interest in history, but that interest has been far too broad. It ranges from modern European to ancient times, and would love for someone to recommend a book that they found fantastic. Time period doesn't matter, as long as it's interesting and somewhat easy to read.

Thanks

I wonder in particular what the average Sami would have looked like during the 5th century. Today Sami people are fairly diverse in appearance, some bearing Finno-Ugrian traits like high cheekbones and hooded eyes, and others looking indistinguishable from people of Norse descent. Were the Sami that diverse in the 5th century, or would they have looked more like the other native Arctic peoples?

Any resources you might recommend about Sami culture in general would also be greatly appreciated.

[deleted]

Like, if one of the Gracchi speaks at the rostra, could the people in the back hear?

Why were African-Americans prevented from joining the armed forces, I've read that theres quite a lot instances of disenfranchised peoples of a society serfs,slaves,minorities being used as "cannon fodder" while the enfranchised are the cavalry/officers and what not, like colonial french armies and north africans, sepoys in india, slaves in greek city state armies etc

Why wasn't a similar policy practiced in America? Also why were the all japanese-american battalion allowed to serve when for all intents and purposes japanese americans were considered coloured people at the time too?

I've had a strange day today that's led me to drinking scotch and reading about WW2 era tanks which turned into me falling down the Wikipedia rabbit hole of related topics. My journey brought me to the page on the Law of War which contains the following paragraphs about historical laws of war:

In the Indian subcontinent, the Mahabharata describes a discussion between ruling brothers concerning what constitutes acceptable behavior on a battlefield, an early example of the rule of proportionality:

One should not attack chariots with cavalry; chariot warriors should attack chariots. One should not assail someone in distress, neither to scare him nor to defeat him ... War should be waged for the sake of conquest; one should not be enraged toward an enemy who is not trying to kill him.

Now most of that makes sense to me, there are some basic principles about who and why you should and should not attack, and a quick google search tells me that the basic principle behind the Rule of Proportionality is that you should not attack a military objective when the attack would risk excessive civilian casualties.

When I read the page on the The Mahabharata it switches the statement around instead saying that chariots shouldn't attack cavalry:

The Mahābhārata offers one of the first instances of theorizing about dharmayuddha, "just war", illustrating many of the standards that would be debated later across the world. In the story, one of five brothers asks if the suffering caused by war can ever be justified. A long discussion ensues between the siblings, establishing criteria like proportionality (chariots cannot attack cavalry, only other chariots; no attacking people in distress), just means (no poisoned or barbed arrows), just cause (no attacking out of rage), and fair treatment of captives and the wounded.

Like the previous quote a lot of this makes sense to me, they are discussing some basic rules of conflict to try to create a "just war" but again the idea that chariots and cavalry should not fight each other comes up.

This brings us to my question, why is there an apparent stated prohibition on chariots and cavalry fighting each other?

I found some mentions of ppl forced to kill themselves as a form of penalty. Obvious examples are Socrates and Seneca but I have also read about silk rope or small golden plate in China or seppuku (which, I believe, is more complicated) in Japan. I wonder, whether there was, in antique civilizations, some kind of law or precedent to sentence somebody to suicide. I am convinced there was, unfortunately, I was unable, so far, to find any reliable source. I would appreciate any suggestion...

Edit: What I am looking for are ancient societies in which suicide was used as punishment or a way to escape some kind of public punishment by honorable or important citizens of that society.

In specific how long did witch trials last? and what were the major causes for them stopping?

It's a question based in a life growing up with crappy war movies and TV shows with a typical sadistic female soldier.

She-Wolf of the SS and such. Did that sort of thing actually happen, is it just something created for B-Movies? I figured it would be rare for women to be soldiers in the first place, let alone in the position to carry out torture.

Media typically depicts 17th C - Napoleonic Era line infantry as standing shoulder-to-shoulder in an open field and blasting devastating volleys at each other while stoically closing ranks as their comrades fall. Inevitably, they charge each other simultaneously, resulting in a decisive victory. Even historical accounts tend to bias decisive victories. How accurate are these depictions?

One would tend to think that human nature would be to take cover when being fired upon would be to "hit the deck" or run for your life. How were soldiers trained to maintain discipline as they were being slaughtered? What kind of tactics were used on the platoon level? How were casualties managed in the heat of battle?