Wikipedia suggests that aggressive Western acts in the early 1980s, culminating in the Able Archer exercises in 1983 convinced some members of Soviet high command that a genuine nuclear first strike was imminent and could easily have provoked a war. I'm curious if this is legit history or a classic Wikipedia foregrounding of a marginal theory.

In modern times the Queen of England visits former colonies like Australia and Canada quite frequently. How regularly did European kings and Queens visit the colonies back in the formative times of these colonies?

You see all these paintings of army's from a few hundred years ago with rows of men with muskets facing each other in battle, so my question is how would they decide who stands in the front? It seems suicidal to be in those positions. Drawing straws? Volunteers? Rank? Thanks for your time!

I was just discussing this with people and I began to wonder if I am right to assumed this. I know many in India and other British colonies did volunteer for the army but is there evidence of people being forced to join as well?

I'm not sure if this is the appropriate subreddit, however, it does deal with something from history. I recently listened to the song "Arizona Sword" by Leslie Fish.

According to the booklet that came with it, "I couldn't tell you the provenance of this local legend that I wrote up and put to music; it seems to date from Conquistador days, which would put it somewhere before 1690, but it also contains sentiments that seem distinctly post-revolutionary. Then again, the Pueblo Indian tribes who threw out Spanish rule in the Great Pueblo Revolt of 1680 had a lot of similar ideas, so the legend really could be that old."

However, Leslie only heard the legend once at a convention and so I have been unable to find the legend behind it. What is the legend? Does it really originate from Arizona in the 1600's? Where does the legend come from and has it evolved over time?

The Lyrics to the song are

“Blacksmith, make a sword for me, such as none did ever see, For ancient symbols of majesty have power in troubled times. Blacksmith, make me a magic sword, one that will make me the valley’s lord Whom folk will hail with one accord to save them from their crimes.” Seeing he would not be deterred, the blacksmith took him at his word And pondered long on what he’d heard about this would-be lord. He pumped the fire and he made his start, melted iron in the fire’s heart, But he named the steel with an older art the Arizona Sword. He chanted words to the blazing mix, of ancient Red Men’s and White Men’s tricks To draw a spirit, and purpose fix in what the blade would feel: The iron laws from Nature’s hand, the ruthless will of the desert land, The freedom no one can command – and cast that thought in steel. And when the blacksmith’s work was done, the new sword gleamed like the setting sun. All down the blade did the old runes run, a warning plain to see. The steel was grained like the finest wood. A full yard long and more it stood. The runes read: “I serve but the good of life and liberty Near the hilt, set in copper wire, a phoenix rose up from the pyre. A copper star within the fire rayed out copper cords. The grip was like a saguaro made that clasped a moon in quartz and jade. In truth, like to no other blade was the Arizona Sword. “Blacksmith, well have ye served my cause. This shall aid me to make the laws. Hmmm, the guards are shaped like cougar’s paws; in truth, like none I’ve seen. The price is steep, but I shall not carp. She’ll sing more praise than a minstrel’s harp. Ye gods, that blade is razor-sharp! ...For a symbol, very keen.” “And cheap she’ll be if I strike ye dead!” The blacksmith promptly turned and fled. The lordling laughed and shrugged instead, and went out to meet his horde. He cried out: “This is the day foretold. Just one hand now this land shall hold, For in this sign will I rule. Behold, the Arizona Sword.” “No more argument shall we find, but all hereafter shall be inclined To just one purpose and just one mind. Thus do I mean to do. Now go ye forth, and take the land.” The sword heard well his first command. She lunged and twisted in his hand, and fell, and ran him through. They say the sword vanished clean away, for none has heard of it since that day, But seek it wisely, and find ye may. Take care, who would be lord. Beware, ye tyrant! Beware, ye fool! For who is the master and who the tool? Ye may well serve, but ye shall not rule the Arizona Sword.

I have occasionnaly hear people claim, that removal of Apartheid in South Africa and Rhodesia are the primary causes of economic decline in the region. While it is occasionally accompanied with some sort of racist remark, but how true is it? Was removal of Apartheid such a disaster for the region as it is sometimes claimed?

I was reading a online article (not academic) about spartan eugenics. My problem is the article states a quote by Plutarch that I really want to use in my essay paper. But on their citation it only says "Plutarch. "Lycurgus: The Father of Sparta (circa 800 B.C.)." I've been trying to where exactly is the quote from (page number or chapter)

Sorry if my question is a bit confused.

I'm aware of the fact the original Punic copy is currently lost to time, but the Greek and Latin pieces still exist(ed) for awhile.

According to wikipedia, we do have the following:

If buying a farm, sell your town house... The most productive vineyards face north.[6] How to plant vines.[7] How to prune vines.[8] How to plant olives.[9] How to plant fruit trees.[10] How to harvest marsh plants.[11] Preparing various grains and pulses for grinding.[12] How to select bullocks.[13] Notes on the health of cattle.[14] Mules sometimes foal in Africa. Mules and mares foal in the twelfth month after conception.[15] Notes on farmyard animals.[16] Getting bees from the carcass of a bullock or ox.[17] The beekeeper should not kill drones.[18] How to preserve pomegranates.[19] How to make the best passum (raisin wine).[20]

Basically, my question comes down to...are these pieces located anywhere? Trying to look online didn't exactly provide me with many results. Figured I'd try you guys.

Any help is greatly appreciated! Thank you...

Tilling up silt and earth from rivers and ports requires enormous effort - how was this done before industrial-era machinery? Especially when the silt is deeper than a human is tall - how was this done if you can't just use a work crew with shovels & buckets?

Happy to hear from any pre-modern era from any geographical era - but particularly interested in late medieval Netherlands, ancient Rome, and the more ancient Near-East.

Bonus for any pre-Columbian American dredging info!

I understand that in medieval warfare, cavalry was used more as a mobile unit and for threat, rather than actual combat. I was made to understand in previous /r/askhistorians answers that in front of organized infantry spear formations, even experienced and disciplined warhorses would falter the charge.

Thus, I have a few questions.

1. Usually, how deep/dense would the cavalry formations be? I would imagine that if the frontline of a cavalry charge falters or slows down, it would be disastrous for the horses and men behind them. Or if they do succeed in a charge and breaks into the enemy formation, wouldn't the speed of the frontline still slow down considerably, leading to the horsemen behind to crash into their own allies?

2. What was the casualty rate like for knights - or any heavy shock cavalry for that matter - in mid- and late medieval period? I imagine even with heavy armour, the impact of a heavy charge would not be merciful to these knights. However I see cases as with the battle of Agincourt, where the French knights and lords join the charge excitedly believing they could easily shatter the English army. Surely that would mean being the frontline of a heavy cavalry charge is not as dangerous as one might imagine?

3. In Total War games, if a cavalry charge is not enough to shatter the enemy, a common strategy would be to pull the horsemen out for a second or third charge. My question is: how easy would a repeated charge be? Wouldn't the frontline that was already engaged in melee be greatly decimated, since they have to turn their horses around and start galloping from stop, all while they are being hacked at by the infantry who surrounded them?

4. Before heavy armour became a thing, wouldn't cavalry, men and horses alike, be basically committing suicide with each charge as they had no protection against the impact?

5. In Medieval II Total War, a group of about 40 heavy horsemen could charge straight into about 200 peasant spearmen and rout them instantly. Usually, when peasant troops are faced with a direct cavalry charge, would it be likely for them to hold out?

[deleted]

How much did they pay? What % of income was this on average and how would it compare to today?

I'm pretty sure I read this somewhere. Could have been that Dan Brown novel, or some "Today I learned" style website.

It sounds plausible enough, but could also just be one of those bad ad-hoc hypotheses.

The idea in more detail is: First societies were matriarchal because people only knew that babies came from mothers, and babies are important. Once it was learned that a man's semen is required, societies became patriarchal, because men wanted to control their lineage.

Has this been studied by serious historians?

I was wondering if any of the experts on this sub had knowledge of good primary sources (like journals) that contained portions on trench raids and preferably German storm troopers. Thanks for any help!

Reasonably often, on here, questions are asked like; "How is the American Revolution taught in Britain?" or "How do countries with long histories teach history?" These are I assume written by Americans, and my issue with them is I have nothing to compare them to. I can tell you how it is taught in Britain, but is it different in America? I don't know. So that's why I'd like to know what history teaching is like in America.

As well as the general structure, here are some sub-questions, or things I'm particularly interested in:

I'm more interested in pre-History-Major classes. So up to 18, and then cumpulsory basic History classes in university (not AP: just what the average people learn).

How much do you learn about pre-USA America, especially Native American history?

How whitewashed is it of things like the American Empire, the destruction of Native American civilisation, etc? (I ask this because people often seem to complain about it)

Particularly, how nuanced is the teaching of the Revolution? Is it all "go freedom, America rulez" or do they talk about the more nuanced things, like the pro-British colonists, anti-Catholicism, etc? (I'm assuming History majors must do, I'm interested in High School and Middle School presentations. I ask this question because a guy asked me about how British history presents it)

How do you fill 14 or whatever years of History teaching, with such a short history? Do you just cover the entire thing in a lot of depth, or do you do lots and lots of non-American history?

What particular things are focused on? I'm guessing the Civil War and Revolution, what else is focused on a lot?

In university, what historiographical approaches are popular? Is Marxist historiography widely used, for example? And on that subject, how much of a focus is there on the Great Men of American history (like Washington, Adams, Lincoln, Jefferson, etc)?

Do you have seperate World history classes, or is it just History? And how much non-American history do you do? How Euro-centric is non-American history?

Feel free to say anything you think is notable or unusual about American history teaching.

Such as Goebbels or even Hitler himself, weren't really Nordic types.