My understanding is that the heavily fortified Maginot Line wasn't extended to cover the French-Belgian border because the Ardennes Forest was thought to be a natural barrier to Germany's Panzer divisions. This obviously proved not to be the case.

So, why did the French think the Ardennes was enough defense against tanks? Who or which department decided this? Was it overconfidence/oversight, or were they correct until new technology or organization allowed the Germans to pass through? Did the French simply believe Germany wouldn't attack the Low Countries?

I understand that the Ottoman Empire would have included a wide range of ethnicities but the character was a diplomatic attache for the Ottoman embassy so I would expect him to be referred to by the country he represents

I've read the original language started by the Baltics, but did it spread through conquest or through their descendants? Do most people who speak a language from that family have an ancestor in that tribe?

previous post stands at ~50 karma and no answers, so please excuse the repost

I'm currently reading a rather dated and somewhat unsatisfactory history of alchemy. One of the questions it has left me with is how much impact alchemy had on other fields, whether practical or philosophical, before, say the 17th century?

Writers on alchemy also often wrote on other philosophical subjects - sometimes with great influence. How much did alchemical theories actually influence theology or cosmogony? On the practical side, were forges, dyers, tanners, etc. using insights from alchemy? If so, how was this influence disseminated?

Asking for a friend 😉

Edit: I know I can go drinking or whoring. I'm looking for experiences unique to Rome in the late Empire. Specific types of gambling, drugs, sex shows/acts, fights and wrestling, and other vices that I'm probably not creative enough to think of that the Romans definitely thought of. This question goes beyond just wine and sex. I was also interested to know what affect (if any) Christianity had on Roman vice and sexual promiscuity.

Edit: now I have gold to spend on debauchery! Thank you kind Redditor!

Sometimes there's just nothing like a good story of high treason, sibling rivalry, or broken trust between friends!

Share your stories of betrayal and traitors here.

Next week: Happy and delightful things

Recently New Orleans dismantled a monument to the Battle of Liberty Place, which was a riot in 1874 against racially-integrated politics. The inscription on the monument explicitly mentioned white supremacy.

The monument was not a Civil War monument since the riot in question took place 9 years after. But are there any memorials honoring the Confederate cause located on public land? Since the Confederates were essentially traitors to the Union, it seems improper for the city to honor them with a public monument.

I am getting this from the chapter "White Servitude" from the Cambridge History of Slavery Vol III: AD 1420-AD 1804. The authors are William G. Clarence Smith and David Eltis. Some of the other stats that are eye-raising is the idea that of the million to a million and a half of the white slaves entering the Maghrib from 1530 - 1780, only 5 percent escaped or were ransomed. The tales and accounts of cruelty are directly quoted though from old newspapers from back then. The author(s) even mention that captive accounts are impossible to authenticate. Just how bad was it, or is this a reflection of contemporary European records which may have a bit of bias? Where would these numbers come from?

So I'm not sure if this question belongs here but it deals more with the Craft of Historians, or more, how Historians write about their topics. If it doesn't belong, I apologize but I want sure where else to ask.

I have never done any formal study of history outside what was required in High School/ University but I love reading about history so I'm not sure if the problem I'm having is a valid one.

I'm making my way through a book on Maya and Aztec people and the author repeatedly references the accomplishments, actions, etc. of military and political leaders to (mostly) European counterparts. The context of the book is all pre-contact but references comparing Mexica rulers to Machiavelli or Cromwell are peppered throughout (I am only 1/4 through the book but it has happened frequently). 

On the one hand I understand the author is approaching a topic that is going to be unfamiliar to most with historical figures the average population has never heard of so providing them with a reference they might be familiar with could be helpful. It just seems to be frustratingly reinforcing a White/European standard by which to judge other people/societies.

I was hoping to read a book about the history of my ancestors but it comes off as much more a 'look these brown people were just as smart/skilled as white people'. Surely there is a way to discuss/ approach the achievements of non-European societies that doesn't require using Europeans as the measure or reference point. Or does that even matter? Am I reading too much into nothing?

On top of that he has occasionally used the dichotomy of barbarian/ civilized when referring to different groups which, to me, just seems a loaded way to refer to different societies/culture, forcing a value judgement on the reader about those two groups. 

So I guess all this is to get to my question: are these issues I, as a layperson, be concerned about when approaching this particular book, or are these just commonly accepted methods of writing about history and I making a big deal about nothing?

I've read Shogun by James Clavell, and it's mentioned that people measured their date of birth by who was a reagent during that time. I'm curious how they referred to specific years, days, months, weeks, etc.

Do the Japanese have a Zodiac system when referring to such things?

I'm aware of the use of era, but I'm thinking on a slightly smaller scale.

I don't want to break the 20 year rule, so if the historical background I ask for is not enough to keep it related to the sub, an answer about the 90s would still be really appreciated. How much of what we see in recent wars and conflicts is a result of historical bad blood? Do the muslims still resent the crusades today, for example?

I would like to learn more about the context of the current situation in Korea. I've always been vaguely interested in the Korean War, as I think it is one of the more under-covered wars in history classes. Is there anything you would recommend for me to read on the subject?

hello,

My question actually pertains to this specific notion:

I remember to have heard that, after the russians beat the US on sending the first man into space the US decided that they HAD to beat the russians on putting the first man on the mon.

I seem to recall that the ORDER was to put a man on the moon in less than 10 years, or something like that, and that it was a political decision, meaning that NASA was basically forced to Figure it out and comply with this deadline regardless of whether they thought it was reasonable.

I'm preparing a class on how constraints and limitations (whether of time, resources, etc) sometimes are acually helpfull to spark creativity.

Example from Audi: "We need to win races with a car that's actually slower" which led them to decide they needed less pit stops, which led them to decelop the first diesel racing engine, which was more efficient

I wanted to incorporate the deadline of the Apollo 11 as a nice story/example of this positivity of constraints..

Can you guys give me more details about this whole Apollo 11 situation?

First of all, am I right about this notion?

What kind of clever advancements or uses of available technologies allowed the mission to be succesfull within the deadline (stuff like eliminating things that weren't acually necesary or repurposing some technology)?

Can you point out some innovation or clever solution that would probably have never existed if they had let Nasa take their time and develop the mission without pressure?

Thanks in advance!

Title, I'm curious if the medals awarded for valor or anything were still recognized, either officially or even just in society, as actual awards vs discredited due to being issued by dismantled regimes. Do many still exist today? Did vets typically show them off or hide them? Thank you!

While researching my family history, I came across a letter that mentioned my 4th great uncle. It was written by a woman to the governor of Georgia asking that he be allowed to stay in their community. She references a recent proclamation by the governor and states that there were no men left in the community. She says it was becoming increasingly difficult for the women to handle the housework, the farm work, managing the enslaved individuals, and any business that was required in the town (buying/selling supplies, banking, etc.). She was urging the governor to allow this one man to stay and help them manage things since he was well-known and honest to those in the area.

So I am curious why they needed to ask permission for him to remain and not serve in the army. Was there a time, or certain areas where it was mandatory?