I am currently reading a book (Israel by daniel gordis) about the history of the nation of Israel from the late 1800s to the present and it goes in depth about the various professions and careers that were common for Jewish people in Europe prior to the holocaust. But it got me wondering how there came to be such a large presence of Jewish people in the American entertainment industry and Hollywood?

It’s my understanding that the motion picture industry as we know it today primarily started in the 1930s and 40s. What drew a lot of Jewish people to this industry or how did they get so involved at such a high rate?

I admit I don't know much about the time of the Inquisition itself. All I've heard over my lifetime is stories about people supposedly being tortured for things like heresy and apostasy and not being faithful enough to the Catholic church. But, some Catholics, and I guess maybe some historical scholars, will say that the Inquisition is often misrepresented or "blown way out of proportions. Or, as I said in the title, some believe it is something like a smear campaign against the Catholic church made to make them look as awful as possible.

I was shocked reading about the terrifying scale of destruction in the sack of Magdeburg, the annihilation of 20,000 out of 25,000 inhabitants, the mass rapes, the tortures. And yet that was just one city out of thousands, and just a small amount out of millions who lost their lives.

The lack of detail on the civilian experience during this war is striking. I am looking for a source that helps me understand not only the chronology but also the experience from the shoes of a 17th century peasant in the Holy Roman Empire.

I am particularly interested in the civilian perspective, but any books on the Thirty Years War that come to mind are welcome.

I remember in High School learning about the American Revolution, and it being stressed that, "no taxation without representation" was the generalized theme of why the colonists broke away from England. Weren't there far more reasons that built up and caused the colonists to declare independence? Always have been curious on this one!

Apologies if this belongs to another subreddit, I couldn't find 'AskHumanities' or anything similar.

I just read the Song of Roland, and while it was very enjoyable (especially the battle scenes with all their bravado), it ended abruptly for no clear reason. After punishing Ganelon, Charles the Great goes to sleep, and receives a mission from Gabriel - he is told to help out some random city besieged by the Saracens. Then he cries and complains about having so many responsibilities as a king.
The end.

???

Talk about anti-climactic. Who would ever consider this a good idea, even in the 11th century? There must be some historical explanation, maybe the story is supposed to continue, or it was tradition to end on a weird note, or maybe we lost the ending. Do you have any info on this?

Was he assassinated? And if so was it by a red hot poker up his ass? Or was that a later fabrication?

I was just doing some reading (to say: skimming Wikipedia) about 'Old Croghan Man' and got to thinking: The pop-history write-ups about human sacrifices often give details ranging in certainty from pure and admitted speculation, to sounding like eye-witness testimony.

Given the importance of these sacrifices to several ancient peoples, Celts and Aztecs being the most famous, you'd think that it would have been a very ritualistic and orderly event similar to how the exact procedure for offerings are prescribed in the Old Testament.

Do we have any written records of the exact step-by-step procedure for these events? like:

1. Subject has to be male under 30

2. read a specific passage

3. cut out his eyes, starting with the left

4. read another specific passage

5. etc

Or was it more "whatever the druid says each time" than I'm assuming.

What makes me come up with this question is the realization that, in most societies, dead is something that people try to avoid at all costs, especially for their loved ones.

It seems to me (I may be wrong) that in Mesoamerican societies, people didn't consider ending one another's life was wrong, that it was a normal part of their culture. And what, to my eyes, is murder, for them was something positive or neutral.

My question comes after the realization that, for people to be ok with human sacrifice, not considering it murder but something normal or even good, they must accept that it happens to people they love. And accepting it as something good or neutral. How did they deal with this?

I heard that he killed men and would rape their women passing his DNA onto the offspring. His children and grandchildren also raped a lot. A study showed that 1 in 8 asian men have his DNA which is 1 in every 200 men

Edit: not sure why I'm getting downvoted

So I’m thinking about writing a novel set in the crisis of the third century from the perspective of a Centurion in the Urban Cohort. Now if/when I actually start to write the first draft I want to make realistic and to feel authentically in the period and profession. So before I get to far ahead of myself and create characters, conflicts, and a plot I feel I need more information on the urban cohort. Like who exactly joined the urban cohort are we talking commoners, nobles, veteran legionnaires, etc what we’re their motives for doing such what was the exact purpose for their existence. What was day to day life like for them?

And then all that in context of the crisis of the third century. I understand the sources on that time period are pretty scarce. So I guess it’s more of speculation. But that said what realistically was it like being in the Urban Cohorts during the crisis of the 3rd century? I mean it was a time that was chaotic filled with civil wars, intrigue, internal strife, and invasions. So how would all that have played into the lives of those in the urban cohort.

English army or lack thereof

   Hi i hope this is an ok spot to ask but i’m doing a project on the English military between the 1400-1650 (i have to prove that england would be a dominant country post 1650)Now from my understanding an official standing army wasn’t formed till 1660, i believe before that there were knights and mercenaires. now my issue lies here, i don’t understand how that system works, and how it allowed them to be such a powerhouse even despite there small numbers. Finding articles is proving a bit difficult (maybe i’m looking in the wrong place) but an explanation would be appreciated or even just a push in the right direction.

For my research I need to read some very old English court decisions, for example Stradling v Morgan (1560) 75 ER 305.

Does anyone know where I can find cases this old online? Are there databases that go back this far?

Thanks!

Hi there, historians!

​

I'm looking for your help to find a good sourced book on the subject of revolutions. It does not need be scholarly (but could) and I'd specially appreciate it if it compares the genesis of different revolutions in world history. I guess the term itself is broad and probably somewhat blurry so I'll let it to you to decide which events/periods of time deserve to be called revolutionary and if it's pertinent to mention failed revolutions as well, in case it makes sense.

​

To be clear: I'm not looking for a dissertation, philosophical or otherwise, on the topic of revolution itself, its meaning or boundaries, but rather recorded narratives about real critical events in revolutionary history. Would you be so inclined to discuss the term itself: Was the national socialist coming to power in 30's Germany a (failed) revolution? Without wishing to offend anyone I ask myself if that much killing and murdering behind closed doors, that went on in Germany as the years went by, does not qualify it as a (terrible and happily failed) revolution.

​

Thank you very much.

​

edit:words

Former Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain died on the 9th November 1940 just a few short months after leaving office and being succeeded by Winston Churchill.

I have always wondered how a man like Hitler who Chamberlain had actually met and engaged with would react to his death. I know his reaction to the death of FRR wasn’t kind but they never met and he learned of his death as he wallowed in his Bunker, half mad and awaiting the end.

I always find myself a bit displeased with contemporary history books (on the average). The pressure seems to be that authors have to assume some judgement about the figures, and I am not particularly fond of that. Moreover, I feel that there is value to reading a book written during the period in concern.

Basically as the title suggests, has there been any people/things from Shetland that have been of note in history? Shetland has a massive history spanning thousands of years, yet you never hear of anyone from it, not even any Vikings. Was just curious.

I just realized that the word “Synagogue” is from Greek, and not Hebrew. I find this choice weird, since the term refers to Jewish place of worship. Was this term used because Greek was the lingua franca of the ancient period?

Also, was there any attempt at changing the term in modern times?

I'm aware that the Nazi propaganda machine both leant heavily on Germany's rich musical past and rejected music that it considered in some fashion ideologically troublesome. Since much of the great baroque composers' corpora (and especially Bach's) was to some extent explicitly devotional - or at least for the purpose of usage in church services - and not particularly concerned with myth and notions of German-ness as later German composers were (i.e. Wagner!), was there any identifiable aversion to the Baroque from the Nazi ideologues?