Was there something special about the 15th century that led this to happen, or was it coincidence?

Okay so me and my boyfriend are having this reoccurring fight about how often a “normal” person could’ve ate cheese during the Middle Ages. To give you more details, we are talking about any time between the 10th til the 13th century in Europe (northern Germany to be exact), average age (for medieval times), average income at the time (clergy and nobility excluded), average family size, average fixed cost etc. Just like the most “normal” person.

How often could that person buy/eat cheese? (Like 250g/8,8oz)

Thanks! Christina

PS: Please don’t hate me if I fucked up my past tenses I’m not a native speaker

I know that this is a reaaaal stretch but here me out before just calling me dumb. Norse by the late 800 and 900s had been in contact with Christianity for awhile but many just added Jesus to the List of Gods right? So was there ever ordained priests of the Church also sometimes doing sacrifices to Thor or Odin. You gotta admit it's a cool thing to think about.

The Second Amendment to the US Constitution says:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It seems most people today understand the phrase "to keep and bear arms" to essentially mean for any person to own a gun and carry it in public. However, after doing a little historical research, I've found this definition to be unclear. Before the Second Amendment was finalized, James Madison's proposed version of the amendment said:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.

This version of the amendment strongly suggests that the phrase "bear arms" means to render military service, specifically to render military service in the context of a militia. Also, the conscientious objector clause in the sentence further confirms this meaning of the phrase, as it would make no sense that a person would need to be "religiously scrupulous" about simply owning and carrying a gun.

However, an alternative interpretation can also be inferred from this excerpt from the Pennsylvania Minority Convention, which also preceded the writing of the Second Amendment:

That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers.

In this statement, it seems that the phrase "bear arms" can also be used in a private and non-military context, in this case for self-defense and hunting. There appears to be a contradiction here, as "bear arms" can exclusively mean "military service" in one sentence but then it can appear to just mean "carry a gun" in another.

Furthermore, I am unclear as to the exact meaning of the phrase "to keep arms"? It seems that to "keep" something can have at least two main definitions: it can mean to "keep" in the sense of to simply be in possession of something, or it can mean to "keep" in the sense of retaining something vis-a-vis someone who could potentially take it away. For example, if you went to a fast food restaurant and paid cash to the cashier, and when the cashier tried to give you back the remainder of what you owe, you might say "Keep the change." In this context, you are not telling the cashier to simply continue carrying the money on their person, but that the cashier is no longer compelled to return the money. So what I mean is that "keep" in the Second Amendment could mean that the people had the right to own and be in possession of arms or it could mean that the people possessed the right to not be coercively disarmed by the federal government.

Furthermore, another possibility is that the full phrase "to keep and bear arms" is not merely the conjunction of two separate phrases which each have two separate meanings, but rather that the complete phrase by itself has its own distinct meaning different from the sum of its constituent parts.

So what did the phrase "bear arms" actually mean to the framers of the Constitution? What did the phrase "keep arms" mean? What did the phrase "to keep and bear arms" mean?

I hope I worded my question correctly as I am not a native speaker of English and it's my very first time making a post. Sorry for any errors.

I am currently studying history in university in Germany and I have taken several classes on topics such as female sovereigns and differences/divergence in the early modern period. There I came across the history of racism as a partly socially constructed phenomenon that did not exist prior to the 18th century (I hope I remembered that correctly). I also took several lectures etc. on post-colonialism (for my second subject English).

Now as someone who is online and is consuming a lot of American Media, I noticed that concepts such as 'black' and 'white' are difficult to apply in European contexts. As a German I have an inherent disgust towards the term 'race' still I wonder how the American concept of 'race' can be applied to European contexts. And how the impact of American Culture and Media might change discourses about 'race' in Europe.

If someone has book recommendations that explore the history of these terms in European contexts (maybe not exclusively through the lens of colonialism) I would he very grateful. Journal Articles are also greatly appreciated.

Thank you very much for your time.

In 1871 the Germans unified under Prussia/ North German Confederation, so what happened to the monarchs of other German states like Bavaria?

Over the past few months, I've posted 6 questions and received two answers, with one being links to similar questions.

It seems the front page is riddled with unanswered questions with most responses filtered.

Could we not add flairs so that the OP could choose whether to allow unmoderated responses? Or could we open up the question after a certain time to casual responses?

I, like I imagine most people in the United States, was taught early on that slavery was abolished in the United States and related countries, mostly on moralistic and philosophical grounds.

Is this still universally considered true, or is there a lot of speculation into other utilitarian motivations at play, like that slavery may not have been economically or socially feasible to continue? I have heard some vague theories like this before, though I do not remember where or by who.

I personally see slavery as being economically viable, but I am also not an economist nor a historian, and therefore am asking for a historian's perspective.

---

Apologies if any of this may sound insensitive in any way - It is a genuine question.

For example, according to modern sources, the Taiping Rebellion killed 30 million people while the Ming-Qing transition killed around 25 million people. How are we sure historians at the time didn't just add a bunch of 0s to the death toll?

Hi Reddit, later this year as part of a midwinter festival I am wanting to attend, I'm interested in going as one of the early Irish Fianna, Diarmuid Ua Duibhne (Diarmid O'Dyna) to be precise. Diarmuid was said to be fostered by Oenghus, Gaelic god of love, youth and poetry while his father was Donn, Gaelic god of death and also a member of the Fianna. The Fenian cycle which Diarmuid is a character in is believed to be set sometime around 200CE-400CE. Information on the early Irish Gaels (Scotti in Latin, is pretty slim particularly when discussing their clothing.

From what I've pieced together it's likely that Gaels/Scotti of the time were wearing thigh/knee length tunics with sleeves (shorter sleeves than the later Irish Leine). Info on pants seem to be both for or against with info saying both close fitting and loose trousers being noted (even striped/checked in colours like earlier Britons/Gallic peoples) considering it'll be the middle of winter I'll probably go with some pants. All this seems to be held up with a belt. Pants also may have had leather straps wrapping the lower legs (can't find much more for or against this or name of it)?

It appears a large woollen cloak called a brat, probably patterned with colours and fastened with a pin or a brooch (Penannular brooches are still from a later era though). Although standardised tartans are over 1000 years after the time period of the Fianna, checked/plaid cloth sure was around. I'm wanting to make a cloak from cloth similar to the "Ancient Campbell" tartan pattern. As Diarmuid was apparently the founder of this clan (which my surname apparently is a sept of) I think this pattern is a fitting choice for the cloak.

Armour in general seems unlikely even though mail was known to the earlier Britons and Romans/Romano-British. There seem to be some references to leather armour at the time but it's pretty flimsy and what's being described seems inconclusive. Only for I'd have is considering the Fianna were hunters and early Irish warfare was between small bands/raiding, some kind of leather chest padding/coat may be possible? There's also nothing for or against leather arm guards/vambraces. A later story mentions Diarmuid getting hit by poisoned darts that go through his armour and shield.

For weapons I'm going to make 2 spears and a short sword as Diarmuid had 2 magical spears which inflicted wounds which couldn't be healed; Gáe Buidhe, the Yellow Spear and Gáe Dearg, the Red Spear which was only used in serious battles. His short sword was named Beagalltach, the Little Fury. On top of these I'm thinking I'll add a skinning/hunting knife and maybe a small hatchet to the belt, once again calling back to the Fianna as hunters/adventurers.

Small round shields similar to bucklers (approx 40-50cm/16-21inches or thereabouts) are known around the time period, It seems they were likely covered with rawhide or leather and possibly painted/coated. It appears the Irish weren't using as large shields as their British, Roman and Germanic contemporaries. I'm thinking of painting a Celtic styled hound and boar on it, animal designs were apparently pretty common in earlier Celtic societies and with the contemporary/later Pictish. The hound and boar are to reference Diarmuids death against a giant boar which was the reincarnation of a man that Diarmuid's father Donn killed in jealousy years earlier (It's also the reason there's a boar head on the Campbell Clan badge).

There isn't much about Gaels wearing helmets during the time period I was thinking I'll probably just go without one.

Shoes are likely pointed, made out of leather, I have some leather shoes that will probably look the part although laced, the should be covered by the pants ends.

I was thinking of wearing a headband made from Leather twined with copper wire, perhaps making a torc as well. Torcs still seemed to be worn in the centuries following the turn into the millennium. The neighbouring Picts were still wearing them circa 6-7th centuries.

Thanks for your time, any feedback and links are appreciated

Biblical descriptions of angels describe large numbers of swirling, almost fractal wings with thousands of eyes incorporated into them. Or burning bushes that talk, and describe behaving better. Having experienced psychadelics, this is very similar to many hallucinogenic trips. This is due to action at serotonin receptors which both cause the visual disturbances as well as empathogenic behaviour.

Ergot mold is a relative of lsd that easily could have been present at the time due to poor storage techniques for rye/grain.

Is there any other evidence that suggests a psychadelic trigger may have helped Christianity get its start? There's mushrooms hidden in the tablecloth folds of some famous last supper artworks.... it just made so much sense when I saw a "realistic biblical angel representation" today. Like, it's just so accurately the exact type of visuals lsd (and its brother ergotism) and mushrooms can produce. It also can often feel like you are in the presence of a greater being, and very often they seem to offer benevolent advice, or warnings of poor behaviour. Everything just matches to me, but I'm an uneducated fool when it comes to this topic.

General Eisenhower wrote in his memoir Crusade in Europe the following passage regarding his reaction to the concentration camps and the action he felt he needed to take:

The same day I saw my first horror camp. It was near the town of Gotha. I have never felt able to describe my emotional reactions when I first came face to face with indisputable evidence of Nazi brutality and ruthless disregard of every shred of decency. Up to that time I had known about it only generally or through secondary sources. I am certain, however that I have never at any other time experienced an equal sense of shock.

I visited every nook and cranny of the camp because I felt it my duty to be in a position from then on to testify at first hand about these things in case there ever grew up at home the belief or assumption that `the stories of Nazi brutality were just propaganda.’ Some members of the visiting party were unable to through the ordeal. I not only did so but as soon as I returned to Patton’s headquarters that evening I sent communications to both Washington and London, urging the two governments to send instantly to Germany a random group of newspaper editors and representative groups from the national legislatures. I felt that the evidence should be immediately placed before the American and British publics in a fashion that would leave no room for cynical doubt.

Was this information ever presented to the public in a widespread manner? What form did Eisenhower's "evidence" he wanted placed "before the American and British publics" specifically take? Did he take specific actions during his Presidency to enshrine the events of the Holocaust? Did General Eisenhower ever give congressional, tribunal or otherwise official legal testimony like he stated he wanted to in regards to what he witnessed?

Did Holocaust denial occur immediately after the war? How did allied commanders or leadership react to this phenomenon?

Did other allied reprisals occur apart from Dachau in response to what soldiers witnessed at the concentration camps?

Was the phrase "I felt it my duty to be in a position from then on to testify first hand about these things in case there ever grew up at home the belief or assumption that `the stories of Nazi brutality were just propaganda’" indicative of Eisenhower presaging Holocaust denial? Was Eisenhower specifically ever confronted with the reality of Holocaust denial? Why was he so worried about it initially?

Are there any specific documentation of impacts, military or civilian correspondence in terms of impact on Jewish soldiers following the liberation of the camps?

Finally, is the onset of Holocaust denial in the decades following the end of the war at all attributable to the lack of public awareness in regards to the Nazi genocide apparatus? Could a more systemic public presentation of available information have curtailed it? Or rather was Holocaust denial an inevitable movement that would spring from Nazi apologism and historical revision? This is tied to the original question.

I'm sorry if I included too many sub-questions... This is my first post on this sub and I didn't see any rules about sub-questions so I just went ahead and included them. I posted this because I've just finished Eisenhower's book and this part stuck out to me specifically because it seemed he, as the Supreme Allied Commander of the ETO was extremely cautious of Holocaust denial, even at the time and would have been in a unique position to push for official documentation. I read through the /r/askhistorians threads about Holocaust denial but couldn't really find anything specific about Eisenhower and the specific actions he took in regards to it. I'm further curious as to what institutional measures were taken to enshrine the historicity of the Holocaust and if allied and post-war leaders other than Ike considered this of paramount importance and what he specifically did to follow through with his stated intentions in Crusade in Europe.

EDIT: I've edited this post a lot to more clarify and specify the questions I had in mind so I apologise if that causes any confusion in the answers.

An introductory reading about the Joseon state,^(1) mentions that the censurate was a powerful branch of the government that made politics more highly visible. I've never heard of an institution like that, even in other Neo-Confucian states in East Asia. What were they and what did they do?

​

“Creating a Society of Civil Culture: The Early Joseon, 1392-1592,” by Jaehyun Kim Haboush, p 3-13

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my question is based on a few perceived facts (which I give because it seems as though this question could only be answered by the incoherence of Nazism--which is plentiful--or a misunderstanding on my part):

1. The Nazis looked up to the Roman Empire and sought to emulate it.
2. The Roman Empire conquered Germanic Tribes, and considered its people to be barbaric.
3. Nazism as an ideology superimposes "racial" purity to any and every other consideration; often embracing a sort of Nordicism or Germanic Paganism/Heathenry.

Considering the aforementioned facts, it just seems to me that it is yet another inconsistency of Nazi ideology. Am I getting anything wrong?

Every single interesting question has like 7 replies, of which i can only see a mod post and some deleted posts, with zero answers. How do I fix this? If I have to be booted from here for posting off topic, zero sweat on my brow because I get no interesting posts to read other than unanswered questions anyways

I know, that Russia has a habit to shoot their own fleeing men, but are there any other countries, that did it at the same mass as Russia?

I'm sure the word "invented" is not the best choice, but basically I question this because I'm currently reading The Exaltation of Inana translation.

here's the link: etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk (for some reason, this link, although matching what I'm currently reading, brings you to their main page. But if you Google the quote, the first option is what I am referring to; it will take you to the writing.)

and in the first stanza, the 3rd to last sentence says, "Like a dragon you have deposited venom on the foreign lands."

I suppose I am confused...Inana dates back to 2300 BC, while the "invention" of dragons doesn't appear in history until 1260 AD.

am I missing something? could someone explain to me? thank you