And if not, why not?

Let's say an 18th century historian came across an account of Greek humanoid automata, or Chinese flying wooden birds - would he think of these things as having actually existed? Or would he assume they were mythical?

Also, I'd be really interested to know how these views would change over time: Would a medieval scholar have believed the accounts? Would a late 19th century history professor have scoffed at the idea that ancient civilizations could have built anything so advanced? And finally how do we in the present separate out the fact from the fiction, given that we know, more or less, which things would be technologically plausible?

Was this the norm then? Any other examples of aggressors in victory paying for damages/debts?

And when did it start to be found unethical? And I'm talking about a general sentiment rather than a few obscure writings by some philosophers/writers.

Edit:In the Western World, especially the England.

Hi! I'm Canadian and would like to know more about the history of my county. This includes the history of the native peoples and any 'forgotten histories' that aren't well known. Thanks in advance!

I know they wouldn't have have the brands as prominently placed as they do now, but surely brand or store names would have appeared on labels inside clothes?

Obviously this is a joke within the movie, but would it be so rare that this mistake could be made if one was to travel back in time?

I read James Carroll's House of War a while ago and he stated that post-war analysis of the allied strategic air campaign in WW2 showed that it was a failure.

His argument seemed to be that the campaign proved self-defeating as it failed to prevent (overall) effective mobilisation (i.e. wasting allied resources that could be more profitably employed) of industrial resources and often indirectly supported them; he cited an example of civilian workers loosing their employment due to city centre destruction and being forced to work in war industries instead i.e. indirectly mobilising more manpower for war industry.

How accurate is this; was the campaign actually ineffective?

Speaking of the early 19th century, I find it remarkable that countries like the UK, the (at the time) United Kingdom of the Netherlands and Germany, who all have languages originating in Germanic all ended up with a protestant christian church.

Whereas countries on the other side like France, Spain, Italy who all have languages originating from Latin/Roman developed a strong catholic christian church.

Is this a coïncidence? The influence of the Vatican being closer to the Roman countries than the others? Something else?

In short: Was language a big influencing factor in the religious development of some countries during the late 18th-early 19th century? (Or do the origins start further back with Luther, Calvin, the Protestant Reformation,...)

From u/typhera :

"Always loved this part of history. And looking at the Portuguese travel routes, I would think they already knew the americas were there, just bidding their time for the right moment to reveal it as it would start a race. Probably why they refused Columbus in the first place and insisted in the Treaty of Tordesillas lines be moved further west from the original point to include Brazil, where they likely already had a proto-colony."

Is there any historical accuracy to this "conspiracy theory"?

With this past year closed out, there are tons of things to sit back and reflect on, and here at /r/AskHistorians one of our favorite things to chat about is books. This thread is the place to share your thoughts on all that reading you got through in 2016, and maybe what you are planning on tackling for the coming year as well!

Both new releases of the past year, as well as ancient tomes that you dusted off are fair game here, and while obviously we're of an historical mindset here, there is nothing wrong with gushing about that 'sword and sandal' thriller, or swooning about a bodice-ripper or two. We can't be reading paradigm shifting opuses all the time after all.

So, fellow Historians, what did you read last year!? What was the best!? What was the worst!? What are you putting on your shelf for the year to come!?

Not sure if this is the right sub the ask this, but I'd like to read up about Bismarck (he fascinates me) and I was wondering if you guys could recommend me a good book?

So I'm sitting here reading through some background on some Hamilton tracks and I see some annotations regarding a line referring to a new man- that this reflects the Roman concept of Novus Homo, the first of a family to enter public life. It made me wonder about the connection between military service and a career in American politics. I've grown up hearing a lot about how prior military service was essential to being a political leader; my question is why this had such a strong connection in our national discussion? I'm familiar with some of the arguments- e.g. a commander-in-chief needs to be intimately familiar with the personal costs of sending troops into harms way; combat is an excellent test to show how someone acts under pressure. But I feel like I am missing something. And is this concept becoming less important? This past election cycle, neither of our major candidates have served in the military. And further, is there some kind of connection to how military service was essential for advancement in the Roman system as well?

Thank you for any light y'all can shed on this topic.

Are there any consistencies over time between fashion and what's going on elsewhere in a culture? Eg are fashions that follow the natural form (eg waist of dresses where natural waists are) more common at times of cultural stability? (That was a theory I read ages ago, somewhere, pointing at dropped waists in the West in the 1920s and empire-lines in Western Europe after the French Revolution.)

The way I understand it, Aboriginal people were not counted into the regular census numbers and the referendum decisively changed that, as well as excluding some discriminatory wording from the constitution. There was plenty of discrimination of the native people before this and lot of it legally sanctioned, but how come what seems like a completely made-up law/legal definition seems to be so persistently thought of as a fact?

I've been looking at the topic of Javelins in warfare for a few hours now, and have yet to come across any examples of spears being thrown in warfare in the Far East. Am I just missing some sources? Or was this actually the case?