[deleted]

Seppuku is probably the most recognizable ritual associated with the Samurai in the West, second only to Bushido. There are many essays on the ritualization of death and the causes that led a Samurai to commit Seppuku: failure in a task, dishonourable conduct, disrespect, etc.

However, in my long quest of research on Sengoku Jidai and other time periods, I have found much evidence completely debunking Bushido even being a thing in Sengoku Jidai. And since I believe that Seppuku is closely tied to Bushido, I am beginning to doubt whether or not it was actually carried out the way everyone seems to think it was. After all, the act of cutting one's belly is supposed to be an excruciatingly painful process, even if the Samurai is beheaded shortly after.

I remember reading somewhere (although I cannot find the source anymore) that Daimyo (or other high ranking Samurai), knowing that they were about to be captured and would likely face torture and slow deaths at the hands of their captors (be it a enemy clan or anything else) chose to die quickly. So, they would get a retainer to be their second, would simbolically 'cut' their bellies open with a wooden short sword (likely a wooden shoto) in a gesture resembling the cut, and then their second would decapitate them, delivering a swift and painless death.

Would anyone be as kind as to confirm this statement? Was Seppuku really a way of safekeeping one's honour through such a painful ordeal, or was it really just a swift, painless death to avoid capture?

On the one hand I can see this as possibly driving down popularity in the sub, but on the other hand I think a lot of people just don't realize how much other interesting stuff is out there.

Sorting by new seems to help so there's always that solution. Just a thought.

My impression is that in the ancient world and in some cultures infanticide was and is considered more a form of "family planning" than a kind of murder.

I'm wondering if there were any tensions in the Roman Empire during the spread of Christianity similar to the modern day abortion debate.

[deleted]

I was watching some documentary about the Tower of London and it was mentioned that it was whitewashed at one point. When did they stop whitewashing it and why don't they continue that today?

Did they ever go past Germania into Eastern Europe? Did they ever cross the north Sea into Scandenavia? Russia? Did they ever go into the Arabian peninsula, or past the Sahara in Africa?

My question pertains to any and all military historians (it will be even better if you are a professor in a military academy). The Great War had provided a wealth of lessons and new military equipment that set the precedent for future wars. The tactics of Trench Warfare and the Creeping Barrage left behind valuable tactical legacies that would eventually be phased out due to the more modern and mobile warfare that we would see during World War II. World War II was a completely different beast from its sister conflict and while we would see instances of Trench Warfare such as in the Eastern Front during Barbarossa and the Soviet Counter Offensives the year after, it was rare and the massive defensive capabilities of trenches were nullified when tanks were used en masse such as in Blitzkrieg and Soviet human wave tactics.

So, my question(s) is: was there a giant reflection that took place after 1918 in which several military theorists made sure to not make the same tactical mistakes that they made from 1914 to 1918? Was this reflection a shared effort or was it primarily an individual effort from several military theorists? Who were some of the leading theorists that changed the way future wars would be fought? Did any of the previous Old Guard who fought in the Great War have a hand in producing those new theories?

I'm curious about the actual, objective timing of the birth and death of Jesus. I read an article that placed his birth on June 7 of the year 0 AD and his death in mid April 30 AD. Those dates were specific enough that it seemed likely that there must have been a basis for them.

My actual questions are do we have generally accepted dates for the birth and death of Jesus, and how confident in their accuracy are historical scholars?

That's basically it. I'm mostly thinking about cartoons from 1930's and 1940's. Many old cartoon characters used to wear gloves, many of which survived in popular culture and kept it as part of their designs until these days, even after decades of redesigns, like Mickey Mouse, Bugs Bunny, Goofy.

Why was that element of the overall design such commonplace?

Edit: typos

I know that most Kings/Queens came to power due to their family names/heritage, but there had to be a starting point somewhere. Was there a time that it was like a battle to death or something beforehand? I've always assumed it was by wealth or popularity but would rather have someone more knowledgeable answer.

EDIT: For clarity, I am asking regarding Medieval Kings and Queens (Europe)

Empires like Rome, The Byzantines, and The Ottomans among others only spread their rule into North Afrcia, and didn't seem to proceed South. Why is that? Are there any examples of Western or Middle Eastern empires conquering more central areas of Africa?

Just having a long bus tour and asking me this question. In my head I can't really think of a plausible time to establish this documents on a wider spectrum...

I just finished reading Steinbeck’s The Grapes of Wrath and I’m curious about the history of the Dust Bowl migration. First, how historically accurate is Steinbeck’s depiction? Did the Hoovervilles of the San Joaquin Valley really contain the degree of squalor, hunger, and misery that the Joads endured? My biggest question is how the situation resolved. Did the migrants unionize? Did World War II create the domestic economic conditions to raise them out of poverty and into the defense industry? Did agriculturalists in the Great Plains discover the environmentally catastrophic effects of their farming techniques and change practices, thus allowing people to return to the plains? And what were the economic conditions in the bigger cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco at the time? Thanks!