Today:
Welcome to this week's instalment of /r/AskHistorians' Sunday Digest (formerly the Day of Reflection). Nobody can read all the questions and answers that are posted here, so in this thread we invite you to share anything you'd like to highlight from the last week - an interesting discussion, an informative answer, an insightful question that was overlooked, or anything else.
4 Answers 2017-05-21
Also, how did the technology of the two compare and how useful was Soviet armor in the snow and cold weather. Why was the Finnish army so good?
1 Answers 2017-05-21
I just read for instance that moustaches had been made mandatory part of army uniform un France and britain by the 1910s. Well what about hairless dudes like me? Wearing a fake moustache in the Battlefield seems counterproductive.
In civil society, what kind of discrédit or discrimination would I likely face ?
Edit: didn't think this question would get this much attention. To those who answered some kind of personal anecdote, know that I got them all in my inbox and appreciate your writing to me as PM. To the DOZENS who've written to me about this or that miracle pill or cream for hair growth uh... Thanks I guess! Will wait a bit before trying any of those though.
3 Answers 2017-05-21
In other words is there such a thing as posh and common Scottish or Irish accents?
1 Answers 2017-05-21
2 Answers 2017-05-21
I can't believe that possibly being a thing, I mean, why would anyone do that? Where did the movies take that from?
1 Answers 2017-05-21
Like have the centurion soldiers and something like that along with the relevant organization, strategy, tactics and weaponry. It worked so well in the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire.
Was this more because the conditions and the environment that led to previous Roman military set-ups working so well changed? Or was it because the Byzantine state deteriorated to the point it can no longer support such kind of a standing army?
1 Answers 2017-05-21
I was reading an article written in July of 1919 in the St. Louis Dispatch, and I'm curious about it's historical accuracy, and I'd like to better understand the context of it.
Page 1: http://imgur.com/a/bcEv1
Page 2: http://imgur.com/a/qWaXH
It starts by saying that historians of the future might see this as one of the most important results of the war. It then goes on to introduce Sultan Husein, and the new state that must be formed that starts in Hejaz, and would spread out into all of Syria. Then it introduces the problem of Palestine being promised to the Jews by Britain, and how that's a problem because it's currently occupied. What I find most interesting, is that it presents Husein as very reasonable and peaceful, and if I didn't know what the next 100 years of fighting would bring, I would think that the Palestinian conflict is very complicated, however it sounds like it can be all worked out peacefully by Husein.
I was left with a lot of questions, given that I only have a cursory understanding of Middle Eastern politics.
I had never heard of Hejaz, but this article seems to take the position that it's a very big deal. Was it?
Was the authors portrayal of Husein accurate? Did his beliefs change over time?
There was a brief mention of immigration to the US (I think from Syria) and how long ago they wanted the US to "assume guardianship and administration of Syria until such a time as the Syrians are able to perform the functions of full self-government". Is this accurate?
1 Answers 2017-05-21
Basically title.. Did Christopher Columbus ever realize that he wasn't actually in Asia, but was instead in the Caribbean?
1 Answers 2017-05-21
What is the consensus on Leonard Peltier and the incident at Oglala.
1 Answers 2017-05-21
Could british sailors sail to America in the winter in 17th century?
1 Answers 2017-05-21
Just something I noticed while looking at pictures of the US presidents. Virtually none of the founding fathers had facial hair, while from Lincoln to Taft, it seemed quite popular. Politicians have never really seemed to closely mirror popular fashion trends, so it just seemed odd to have such a noticeable shift in the American acceptance of bearded politicians.
2 Answers 2017-05-21
I'm doing a history kit for one of my grad classes and we have to include a certain amount of primary/secondary sources. As my theme is American attitudes towards communism and the Soviet Union, I thought I would include the song Viet Nam by The Minutemen (released several years after the end of US intervention). Would that count as a secondary source?
1 Answers 2017-05-21
Period: 19th century to 20th/21st century
In the early 1800s soldiers/officers having facial hair was prolific. Even until the late 1800s (Franco-Prussian War, Anglo-Zulu War) many still wore large beards and moustaches. However coming in to WW1 and all the conflicts past that, the standard (bar places like the Indian Army) was to be clean shaven. Today, absolutely no facial hair is allowed in most armies as part of the uniform instructions.
What saw this change?
1 Answers 2017-05-21
I've heard that the Romans' use of lead pipes caused them to go crazy and contributed to the fall of Rome. How much of an impact did it have?
1 Answers 2017-05-21
1 Answers 2017-05-20
2 Answers 2017-05-20
Hey, I just saw the movie Kingdom of Heaven. I was wondering If the main character "Bailian of Ibelin" really existed, and if his endeavours were close to What is portrayed in the movie?
1 Answers 2017-05-20
1 Answers 2017-05-20
Certainly very interested in the answers.
4 Answers 2017-05-20
Obviously it wasn't individually coiled springs topped with 6 inches of memory foam.
EDIT - Sorry, should clarify, I asked about those in this century with the sacking and fall of Rome in mind. So basically, what would a typical Roman have slept on. And if its known, how would that have differed from how the invading tribes would have slept, if at all.
1 Answers 2017-05-20
I am aware that Islamic world is a large area. I am mainly interested in Egypt and the Levant but any information is welcome.
1 Answers 2017-05-20
I took a DNA test for a genetics class....and I, along with every other African-American in my class, had very surprising results. Apparently, I am 27% European( 11% Great Britain, 5% Irish, 5% west Europe, 4% Ashkenazi, 2% scandinavian). very odd seeing as I don't think I look European at all...Well, neither do Sasha and Malia Obama, I guess...
EVERY OTHER Black kid had at least 18% European ancestry (except for one Jamaican kid, he had 6%). My mother got really emotional when I asked her if we had white relatives she knows about. She told me its rape blood and not to tell my father about the result because he'll get upset, his family is from Louisiana she thinks he'll have even more European ancestry.
An irish-american classmate told me Irish people came to America as indentured servants and sometimes had relationships with black slaves due to their close social proximity. Meaning... most of the Irish ancestry may not be from rape. I am hopeful there is truth in that.
My genetics teacher says the DNA evidence points to rape due to the European DNA mostly coming from males and the segment lengths suggesting the DNA was introduced no later than 150-200+ yrs ago.
Are there any documented cases of consensual interracial relationships in America before ~1850 That could account for why the entire African-American community has ~20% European DNA? Could relations with Irish indentured servants explain this admixture?Any insight would be greatly appreciated:)
3 Answers 2017-05-20
It seems a little difficult to believe that a small kingdom half the world away from the Indian Ocean was capable of controlling an area surrounded by powerful empires close by. I once heard an offhand comment that, from the perspective of the states around the Indian Ocean, the Portuguese were regarded as little more than glorified pirates. Is that true?
2 Answers 2017-05-20