1 Answers 2016-12-31
It's my understanding that success was largely based on the speed of the draw, as aiming was often frowned upon, but given the low accuracy of pistols of the day, it seems pretty random regardless. However, if there was skill, were there things like courtiers that were "duelists for hire"? Were there those who found great political/business success based largely on their dueling skill alone?
2 Answers 2016-12-31
I know Texas does for sure during 7th grade. Who else?
1 Answers 2016-12-31
Mostly for central and south america, it seems every time the communist boogeyman would rear its head the CIA would try and install the most brutal despot they could find as long as they swore to kill lots of communists.
Why not try and get these countries on e.g. US-aligned european-style social-democracies to draw them away from communist lure instead?
1 Answers 2016-12-31
1 Answers 2016-12-31
Why did the Soviet Union consider cybernetics pseudoscience? What's the background behind this belief? Was this a common belief among Socialists during the time?
1 Answers 2016-12-31
3 Answers 2016-12-31
In another thread, someone posted a link to this website which shows terrible food photography from the '60s and '70s. The thread itself was about the food, but I was wondering about the photography, and a mod suggested I ask in a fresh post.
I'm not a photographer, so I can't explain it clearly, but it seems to me that all the color photos there share similar unappealing qualities independent of the subject matter. Something in the lighting or focus, or perhaps artefacts due to film technology of the time. I'm almost certain I've seen the same qualities in other photos from the time that aren't food-related, but I have no examples to offer. I feel a modern photographer working with the same dishes would make them look vastly more appealing.
My question is, what changed around the late '70s, or early '80s that made that style of photography fall out of favor? Was it just fashion? Were there adcances in lighting or film chemistry? Am I just imagining it?
1 Answers 2016-12-31
We know that the United Kingdom was an enemy of the United States in the American Revolution as US was its former colony and in the War of 1812. More of like asking the developments and the gradual events that led the UK from being one of the US's enemies to a close ally.
2 Answers 2016-12-31
I recognise that the time range is great, and while certain empires can be explained (Persia having access already), others did not (notably Rome and the earlier Egyptian Kingdom).
Were the nations there vasalised?
1 Answers 2016-12-31
1 Answers 2016-12-31
3 Answers 2016-12-31
Both the British and French empires fielded colonial units either made up of natives or who saw active service in the colonies (i.e. Algeria and India). Did the Germans utilize native units or have colonial garrisons during WWI?
1 Answers 2016-12-31
I was wondering, as a undergraduate history student who is passionate about his subject, what would a historian say is the best way to continue with the subject past university? How would one continue to work in history/ become a historian? What is the best way to make this your profession in a field that is so diverse and competitive? Would love to hear some historians opinions!
1 Answers 2016-12-31
I was watching The Walking Dead and realized that people have been writing about these types of villains for centuries, and wondered what made them so special as opposed to others.
2 Answers 2016-12-31
I'm trying out the "80 days" podcast claims so (18:22) https://80dayspodcast.com/2016/09/11/s1e06-liberia/ but they're a bit sloppy with their research.
1 Answers 2016-12-31
It seems like the Roman attitude to warfare was something fundamentally different. Even Hannibal, an expert in warfare and someone who had a deep understanding of the psychological aspects of war, was taken aback at how the Romans refused to capitulate even after some horrendous defeats.
Furthermore you see significant figures in other nations like Alcibiades, Himilco Phameas, Themistocles, Nicias, etc happily defect when either the tide turned against their side or their political standing seemed threatened. Yet you never hear of major Roman generals defecting - there seemed a lot more loyalty to the state and willingness to fight to the very end...Both from the senior generals and indeed the everyday soldier.
Are there any theories as to why the Romans exhibited such a different psychological approach to war than the other great civilisations? Whether it be because of things that happened to Rome or something unique in the socioeconomic layout of Italy...Or something entirely different?
1 Answers 2016-12-31
Welcome flair applicants! This is the place to apply for a flair – the colored text you will have seen next to some user's names indicating their specialization. We are always looking for new flaired users, and if you think you have what it takes to join the panel of historians, you're in the right place!
For examples of previous applications, and our current panel of historians, you can find the previous application thread here, and there is a list of active flaired users on our wiki.
A flair in /r/AskHistorians indicates extensive, in-depth knowledge about an area of history and a proven track record of providing great answers in the subreddit. In applying for a flair, you are claiming to have:
Expertise in an area of history, typically from either degree-level academic experience or an equivalent amount of self-study. For more exploration of this, check out this thread.
The ability to cite sources from specialist literature for any claims you make within your area.
The ability to provide high quality answers in the subreddit in accordance with our rules.
For a more in-depth look at how applications are analyzed, consult this helpful guide on our wiki explaining what an answer that demonstrates the above looks like, as well as this META thread which provides some analysis of the application process.
To apply for a flair, simply post in this thread. Your post needs to include:
Links to 3-5 comments in /r/AskHistorians that show you meet the above requirements, and of which at least three were posted in the last six months.
The text of your flair and which category it belongs in (see the sidebar). Be as specific as possible as we prefer flair to reflect the exact area of your expertise as near as possible, but be aware there is a limit of 64 characters.
One of the moderators will then either confirm your flair or, if the application doesn't adequately show you meet the requirements, explain what's missing. If you get rejected, don't despair! We're happy to give you advice and pointers on how to improve your portfolio for a future application. Plenty of panelists weren't approved the first time.
If there's a backlog this may take a few days but we will try to get around to everyone as quickly as possible.
"I'm an Expert About Something But Never Have a Chance to Write About It!"
Some topics only come up once in a blue moon, but that doesn't mean you can't still get flair in it! There are a number of avenues to follow, many of which are dealt with in greater detail at the last section of this thread.
Expected Behavior
We invest a large amount of trust in the flaired members of /r/askhistorians, as they represent the subreddit when answering questions, participating in AMAs, and even in their participation across reddit as a whole. As such, we do take into account an applicant's user history reddit-wide when reviewing an application, and will reject applicants whose post history demonstrate bigotry, racism, or sexism. Such behavior is not tolerated in /r/askhistorians, and we do not tolerate it from our panelists in any capacity. We additionally reserve the right to revoke flair based on evidence of such behavior after the application process has been completed. /r/AskHistorians is a safe space for everyone, and those attitudes have no place here.
Quality Contributors
If you see an unflaired user consistently giving excellent answers, they can be nominated for a "Quality Contributor" flair. Just message the mods their username and some example comments which you believe meet the above criteria.
Revoking Flair
Having a flair brings with it a greater expectation to abide by the subreddit's rules and maintain the high standard of discussion we all like to see here. The mods will revoke the flair of anybody who continually breaks the rules, fails to meet the standard for answers in their area of expertise, or violates the above mentioned expectations. Happily, we almost never have to do this.
Additional Resources
Before applying for flair, we encourage you to check out these resources to help you with the application process:
47 Answers 2016-12-31
According to Wikipedia, "Rockin Eve" became an annual tradition starting in 1972. The Times Square ball drop was happening long before that. How was the celebration in Times Square different than it is now, with all of it's media superstars? Also, what were party hosts tuning in to for "the countdown" in the radio and early TV era.
MODS: I asked this question a few years ago but the response was deleted. Sorry for the repost but I thought it would be a good discussion for today.
1 Answers 2016-12-31
2 Answers 2016-12-31
Today:
Saturday Reading and Research will focus on exactly that: the history you have been reading this week and the research you've been working on. It's also the prime thread for requesting books on a particular subject. As with all our weekly features, this thread will be lightly moderated.
So, encountered a recent biography of Stalin that revealed all about his addiction to ragtime piano? Delved into a horrendous piece of presentist and sexist psycho-evolutionary mumbo-jumbo and want to tell us about how bad it was? Need help finding the right book to give the historian in your family? Then this is the thread for you!
8 Answers 2016-12-31
I've been studying some medieval sources of meetings between kings in the Early Medieval period, and came across the famous source by Dudo of St. Quentin. In this source, the viking Rollo refuses to kiss the foot of King Charles the Simple, instead ordering one of his men to. This man, instead of bending to kiss the king's foot, lifts Charles' foot off the ground causing him to fall.
Although a tall tale, do accounts of disrespect appear often in negotiations between Christians and non-Christians often in the medieval period? I'd also be interested in hearing examples of diplomacy between Christains and Muslims. Thanks!
1 Answers 2016-12-31
