I'm reading a biography of Karl Marx and it says his father Heinrich converted from Judaism to Protestantism for career purposes in 1818 and all of his children (including Karl) were baptized. Apparently this was a fairly common practice of the times for Jewish professionals. Would the descendants of Protestant converts later be persecuted by the Nazi regime?

I know this is a history subreddit but flags are an important part of history imo. Qatar has a burgundyish color and Sri Lanka has a maroon bit but I’d argue that is more red than purple. Was it an unattractive color to people? It’s one of the three secondary (subtractive) colors and you see plenty of orange and green but no eggplant purple. The only country flag I can think of with significant purple is the flag of The Second Spanish Republic which is no longer used to my knowledge (except by Hispanophiles like me) . To be clear, I’m referring to a general color theme, not minor details of a flag such as a small section of a country seal present on a flag.

Follow up: Why have so few of the Norwegian Kings been excavated? We know where many of the graves are located.

As the title says. Before dropping the bomb. How well understood was the damage the bomb could cause?

Hello all, can somebody with just a Bachelor's in History get one of their research works published, or will their work be disregard because they don't have a terminal degree?

In the second line of "The Ruin," the poet declares the crumbling remains (presumably the Bath of Sulis at Bath) to be "the work of giants."

Anyone interested in Britain during Late Antiquity has often heard this language used for the Roman inhabitants, but I wonder just how accurate this sentiment was if not for just a neat poetic device. After invading the Isles following the Roman withdrawal, did the established Anglo-Saxon kingdoms really begin to believe that the ruins were the works of giants?

My thinking is that there would still be a general consensus that the Romans had been there and left the buildings as they were, but I would love to hear your thoughts!

Since Japan couldn't invade in 1941 what threat could they realistically have posed in 1917?

Hello historians!

I hope this question does not count as a “homework” because I believe it is not.

I am currently writing my Bachelor work, the subject is American history, specifically the Internment of Japanese Americans during the WW2.

I’ve been trying to find as many sources as possible but the best I got was the San Francisco museum archives, which is incredible for my work but I still need more.

Finding the sources is a bit difficult considering some of the sources have regional protection. So if you are aware of anything that might help me with this I’d be incredibly grateful. I understand working with primary sources is a bit harder, but I will gladly accept good secondary sources as well.

Thank you for your time and have a nice day!

I live in Greece but I have never seen any ancient Greek statues or depictions were the portrayed person wears warm clothes for winter.

There have always been tyrants and despots, but there is something fascinating about 20th century dictators. Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Pinochet, Gaddafi, Khomenei, Idi Amin, all those guys.

A lot of them come from absolutely nowhere and can represent the greatest evil that is hidden within humanity. A lot of them have funny ideologies, some of them just fight for themselves, they really are a diverse group of the same rotten apples.

With the 20th century came more freedom for the average nobody and a greater ability for some random dude to acquire power over a country and carve his name into the book of history. We could see a LOT of these people pop up and many of them were alive at the same time as each other.

Surely there is still a lot more to the equation than that. How is it that so many tyrants managed to acquire power in the same century and what exactly made their rule different to dictators before the 20th century?

Since the technology behind the atomic bomb was new, and never tested in action (at least in full scale?), did the physicist correctly estimate what kind of explosion it would result in? Or was everything at best in an "educated guess" level and no one really knew? Did they knowingly take the risk of the explosion being much larger than anticipated like this: "okay we have this massive bomb.. we do not know how big the bang will be... but it should be nice way to destroy our enemies, lets test it even though it might destroy the planet"? Or were they 100% sure based on the basic laws of physics, that there will not be a catastrophic disaster affecting the whole planet for example?

I am aware that the effects of radiation were not properly understood (people located way too close to the blast) but I am asking especially about the blast itself and the instant effects.

I've been reading "Dagobert, roi des Francs" by Maurice Bouvier-Ajam, and I've been pretty intrigued about his mentions of the medieval "Wild Men" communities, who lived in the Old Forests of Merovingian Francia, were barely evangelized and had "prehistoric" (author's words) customs and technologies.

This made me think of the uncontacted indigenous tribes of the Amazon, who live away from westernized civilization and keep to their own customs.

Deforestation in Western Europe wasn't as rampant in Late Antique times, and Wild Men were known to live in those Ancient Forests; this is not dissimilar to the pristine parts of the Amazon where uncontacted tribes do still live.

Am I too far off in thinking these Wild Men were Europe's equivalent of Uncontacted Tribes? Or are they only a mythological concept? Are there any noteworthy books describing their cultures?

For context, her character is lamenting the loss of Native American land and their forced removal onto reservations.

The full quote is: “I wish I could go back in time and tell our people to sell every weapon they had. Every horse. Then take that money and go to New York and hire the biggest law firm in the city. If I could do that, we wouldn’t be standing here.”

I know this isn’t a probable scenario, but would this have even been possible? Say the remaining native tribes and their chiefs managed to band together to actually sell everything they had. Would it have been enough to purchase back their land? Would this be something the US government would’ve allowed to happen? Would any lawyer in the country actually take them? Even if this managed to work, would it remain in tact to the present day?

Thanks!

I've been in several debates with Lost Causer types of people and they seem to have a huge disdain for Longstreet. I have heard he turned a new leaf after the war but there has to be specifics I don't know about. What did he do to cause such a furor?