Inspired by a recent TIL post that described how the pirate Captain Blackbeard treated his slaves, it got me wondering how modern historians can seemingly extract such information from little to go off of. Perhaps soldiers logs/journals told of how their superiors treated them but how accurate can that information be.

Also how common is it for modern viewpoints to flop their opinions on historic leaders based on new foundings or revelations?

My understanding is that George Washington was a mediocre general, with many of his support staff being equally untalented. Especially in the early years of the revolution the continental army was beset by losses, even in situations where more canny tactical decisions may have resulted in victories.

Further down the road it seems abundantly clear that the US civil war lasted as long as it did in large part due to the ineptitude of Union high command. McClellan was over-cautious and refused to pursue the enemy without overwhelming numerical superiority. Hooker was rash and overly impulsive. Even Grant, if I recall correctly, relied primarily on his massive superiority in numbers and munitions, taking disproportionately heavy losses in combat.

Throughout the 19th century military planners and logicians made serious blunders as well. During the civil war Union officials notoriously rejected the idea of arming soldiers with breach-loading or repeating rifles in favor of rifled muskets in fears that soldiers would waste ammunition. Later, during the Spanish-American war American units were armed with Krag-Jorgenson rifles which were far outclassed by Spanish Mausers. Likewise I have read that US forces continued to employ Gatling guns over early machine guns, despite their greater weight and lower rate of fire/poorer accuracy.

After America's entry into the first World War US officers insisted on using frontal assaults long abandoned by the French and British, despite repeated warnings by their allies that these tactics wouldn't work.

Finally, during World War II I've read that German soldiers criticized their American counterparts, claiming that American units rarely used properly coordinated attacks with infantry and armor, and that their military success seemed more rooted in the fact that they had nearly unlimited quantities of all resources.

I recognize that the United States' immense population, industrial capacity, and resource base has long served as its greatest military asset. That said, is it fair to say that (maybe as a result?) there is a history of poor leadership and tactical thinking?

In many different movies you see the commanding officer shoot and kill some one who is disobedient or who does a poor job? Would this ever have been allowed or just Hollywood history?

The stereotype of the "Stepford Wives" All American Housewife and the Pipe-smoking Breadwinner Working Father seems so rooted and promulgated in 1950s era media imagery. How and why was this image cultivated through this decade specifically?

Austerity Britain, 1945–51

Family Britain, 1951–1957

Modernity Britain, 1957–1962

Chile regularly ranks at the top of rankings of Latin American countries. Their HDI even beats out some EU countries. A lot of international tourists from Latin America are Chileans. Street View images of Chile also seems to give a good impression relative to nearby countries.

It seems that Chile has generally had an auspicious economic history, winning lots of wars, discovering huge mineral reserves, and generally having a stable fiscal and monetary policy. Is this the primary factor, or are there other things at play?

I would imagine the Nazi's would have done something to his grave, are there any stories or sources of anything of the sort?

I'm wondering how Beethoven earned money, for instance, for his 9th Symphony. Was he paid by a patron? Did he earn money for it's performance? For subsequent performances? For selling sheet music? Did orchestras need to get permission during Beethoven's time to perform it? Or was it essentially "free to the world" once released?

Did he have to pay Schiller for the text for the choral "Ode to Joy" that he put to music?

(Usual line about forgiving me if this has already been answered and grateful for the links to that answer here.)

What I was taught in school was that these are half-truths twisted to become part of Hitler's Big Lie - Jewish people may have been over-represented in fields such as banking (not nearly as much as the dude on FB suggests), but that is because of their high literacy rate and because of historical prejudices of surrounding peoples that drove them into certain fields - thus making it ironic to blame them for being in those fields to begin with.

As a follow up to my original question - how accurate is the version of events I was taught in school, and is there a more modern and complete understanding of the situation?

Mainly talking about the era of the Oregon trail. I was talking with some co-workers and we were joking about how in the game if you got dysentery you were practically dead already. And yeah I know it's a game but I remember that it's fairly somewhat historically accurate to the struggles of the trail. Why was dysentery, which if I remember correctly is just a fancy name or diarrhea, so deadly in that era (and possibly eras past)

I imagine it had to do with FDR dying while in office, but why was it that the speaker was chosen as first in line after the vice president. It seems like this creates a pretty big conflict of interests in an impeachment setting. It's the current situation that has me thinking of this. If the president and vice president were to be involved in a serious crime or possibly completely legal, but highly unethical scandal, wouldn't the speaker have large motivation to swing votes toward impeachment? I recall a similar conflict of interests with Henry Clay in the 1800's having a large say in an election he lost. I think it was the election of John Q. Adams? Something like he was sour Andrew Jackson took votes from him, but since nobody had a majority, the House decided, and Henry Clay was speaker, so he pushed through second place John Q. Adams. If I'm wrong here, please enlighten me. This is what I recall from High School years ago. If this is correct, did anyone consider the conflict of interest when passing the succession act, through this example or otherwise?

[deleted]

To clarify - when the Soviets established North Korea, what made Kim their choice? Were other candidates considered?

I had a history teach in my local community college say that we got the word commode because the reign of Commodus was so bad it reminded people of human waste. I didn't believe it at the time and I've never heard that before and I've never heard it since. Any truth to it?

Like would a Byzantine dress similarly to a Roman in the Empire or to their contemporaries in post-Roman Western Europe? Or maybe neither

Could Japan muster a land force strong enough to push on Russia while ignoring the Non-Aggression Pact they had with the Soviet Union?

Let's say an army defeats other army in a battle and there are thousands of dead soldiers on the field full with weapons and armors. Could the ordinary footmen loot whatever they wanted and take them for themselves? So poor peasant footmen could possibly get a sword and chain mail now? Or King takes the loot for himself? Thanks.

Hi everybody, after the summer I hope to do my last semester of uni and get my bachelor's degree in history. But as I am a vat of doubt in all aspects of life, choosing a topic for my thesis is really quite difficult. I have to find a historical debate to which I can contribute, so does anybody know any hot historical academic topics that are suitable for a thesis? Or better yet, that deserve a thesis.

A number of general ideas that have sprung to mind were:

• Populism and demagogues, like paralells between Trump and Caesar for instance, what makes the eternal demagogue? (probably better for a book, too broad)
• The cultural representation of iconic historical figures as identity-forming heroes, while often times they have commited atrocities or have a major dark side which is deliberately not remembered. (kind of selective collective memory and the construction of cultural identities)
• The new rise of nationalism (in Europe I think) and the way people cling to their 'national identities', while often times they have no idea what that identity actually entails. In my opinion it is largely a romantic idea from the 19th century, that tried to homogenize heterogenous groups of people within geographic boundaries, in order to force the nation-state into being. (any thoughts on this logic?).
• Similarities in the doctrine of the KKK and black separatists like Nation of Islam, both groups advocated racial segregation, which I found quite interesting. I am not very keenly aware of American history though.
• Dan Carlin really opened my eyes on the significance of the First World War and how we are still dealing with it's aftermath now. So someting about the state of contemporary international affairs in the lights of WW1, and how WW2 overshadowed WW1 in significance. It even lost the name the 'Great War' after WW2.
• Something about Vikings, Knights or Romans and Germanic tribes, to please my inner child.

If you have any thoughts, recommendations or advice, it would be very welcome! A completely differen subject than the ones above are also appreciated!

Or is there any? For instance, I'm researching Mesopotamia and the Near East, and I saw references to the Early Dynastic Period of Mesopotamia, and then when I switched the Near East (Transjordan area), the term Bronze Age was used more often, even roughly with the same dates (3300/3000-2100/2000). Is there any difference between the terms or are they used interchangeably?

[deleted]