I am aware of the fact that Communist movements and organizations, such as the League of the Just in 1836, existed prior to Marx, but I haven't been able to find much of a concrete explanation on the ideological underpinnings and organizational structure of these movements and organizations that existed prior to Marx and Engels publishing the Communist Manifesto other than the fact that they tended to be more based in Christianity, and Marxist Communism was more atheistic or at least secular (and I know that the "opiate of the masses" line is often cited sans context). But other than that, I don't know much. Would they have called themselves "Communists" or was that a Marx invention. Was their perspective on the nature of the relationship between the Bourgeois and the Proletariat similar to Marx's or different or was the class struggle concept absent (or much less prominent) altogether? What was their relationship to socialism, or was the distinction seen at all, prior to Marx's vision of it as a stage following capitalism, but preceding communism?
1 Answers 2016-11-28
1 Answers 2016-11-28
[deleted]
2 Answers 2016-11-28
Basically at any time in history - during the dark ages to the Salem witch trials.
2 Answers 2016-11-28
The Soviet Union didn't just die in an instant. How did it happen (in detail)? How did the Russian Federation form from it?
1 Answers 2016-11-28
Fitting in the theme of "labour and the working class", I've recently found out that my great grandfather was a "hire carter", ironic seeing as his last name was actually Carter.
I was wondering about the specifics of being a "hire carter." Does it essentially mean that he was contracted by different people (similar to our modern day freelancers) to transport belongings and people from A to B? What kind of vehicle would be used - cart? wagon? Was it a stable form of income?
Any other detail would be greatly appreciated!
1 Answers 2016-11-28
[deleted]
1 Answers 2016-11-28
It's a subject I am completely fascinated by and would love to read accounts from both sides and civilians caught up in the conflict. Dan Carlin's Ghosts of the Ostfront podcast gripped me a few years back and I've been wanting to read a more in depth analysis since. Thank you.
1 Answers 2016-11-28
It seems as if the many, many downsides of existing within the Reddit ecosystem increasingly outweigh the advantages of a large audience. Reddit has neither a healthy user-base, an appropriate popular reputation, nor a well-suited technical system for the sort of work AskHistorians seems to be trying to do. I know I have in the past been reluctant to engage because of these issues. I wonder if there has been consideration for alternatives?
13 Answers 2016-11-28
It is my understanding that the Q source is thought to be a collection of sayings from Jesus , which follows the structure of the Gospel of Thomas. Is it unreasonable to think that 'The Gospel of Thomas' could possibly be a copy or descendant of an earlier Q source that was translated into Coptic (with or without Gnostic influence)?
2 Answers 2016-11-28
1 Answers 2016-11-28
Hello, so I got assignement for my history lesson to write a 1000 word essay with title - The [CHOOSE EVENT] was the most important milestone of the 20th century and this is why
I had this assignement since september but was kinda procrastrinating till now and I have 3 days until deadline.
I was thinking about two topics to write about and I would like to ask you for some sources on both of them as some starting point for me.
Btw i chose these two because I live in Slovakia, a country influenced by a propaganda war led via internet pages. Thanks for any help you can give me.
2 Answers 2016-11-28
Nowadays we refer to decades in the 1900s at the '20s, '70s, '90s, etc. During the 1900s were these expressions used to describe the 1800s and simply jumped a century naturally as the 1900s went on, or is these kinds of references modern sayings.
1 Answers 2016-11-28
There are some explanations of this I've seen, but I'm wondering if any of the experts here have documents that could paint a better picture for me and those interested.
I'm aware that trade was probably handled much differently 2000 years ago, so I'm not confident that finding the dollar value of 15-30 oz. of silver and adjusting for inflation (how would you even do that?) gives a very good insight into Judas' betrayal. Now silver is a commodity, but back then it was money. Pretty much everything was different, and there's probably a lot I'm not considering.
###Note
Whether or not anything in the Bible actually happened isn't all that important to me, or this question. I'm not religious, nor is this question concerned with the historical merit of the text. I'm mainly trying to understand the story within that text (and this particular character) a little better. To do this requires some understanding of the historical context in which the story was written.
With that said, if there is a better sub for this question, please let me know!
1 Answers 2016-11-28
1 Answers 2016-11-28
Most of the sources I've read about the first professional standing army of Central Europe analyzed the make-up of this force in addition to their weaponry, tactics, heraldry etc., but I'm lacking sources when it comes to the army's potency to heal wounded combatants after battles.
Could a soldier count on their lord to employ a doctor to save their lives? Would this doctor treat them free of charge, or would he ask for compensation? What chance would a soldier have when it came to lacerations? And since the Black Army had a sizeable supply of guns, is there any information how gunshot wounds were treated?
1 Answers 2016-11-28
Welcome to Monday Methods!
Lately, we have seen a couple of threads asking how to best interview people who have witnessed and/or were part of important moments and developments in history such as the grandpa who served in WWII or similar.
Oral history is regarded in academia as its own kind of source and in terms of how to best produce and/or deal with this source, a couple of methods have been developed in the past.
Almost every guide to this subject will first caution readers and users of said sources that memory is known to be a fleeting thing. Oral history interviews are grounded in memory, and memory is a subjective instrument for recording the past, always shaped by the present moment and the individual psyche. The same is, of course, true for other kinds of sources but the oral history interview imposes another layer of subjectivity or situational context, if you will: Namely, that it is a communicative situation between two people - the interviewer and the interviewee.
Secondly, when conducting or using an oral history interview as a source, it is imperative to be aware of a certain cultural background, especially in terms of how memory works within a certain national or social culture. To give an example: In his article Remembering Jasenovac: Survivor Testimonies and the Cultural Dimension of Bearing Witness in Holocaust and Genocide Studies (Spring 2014) 28 (1): 58-84 historian Jovan Byford points out that interviews with survivors of the Ustasha atrocities are often conducted by interviewer and interviewee in the style of a judicial cross-examination. This has to do with the memorial culture of socialist Yugoslavia that focused very much on the factual retelling of atrocities. Western memorial culture in terms of Holocaust survivors on the other hand, was more interested in how survivors felt and what they perceived in a given moment or in connection to a certain subject rather than a "mere" factual retelling of their plight.
With such caveats in mind, there are several handy tips for conducting oral history interviews. First of all, ask yourself what you want to learn from said interview. Secondly, learn all that you can about the person you are interviewing. Third, be well versed in the historical subject you are approaching via oral history. And fourth, try to maintain an atmosphere that is as comfortable as possible. People tend to take on a different kind of posture and talking when in an obvious interview situation. Alleviate that by being as subtle as possible or even by starting it off as a discussion first and only later recording it. And finally, make sure your bring a document with you that the interviewee signs so that you can use the interview.
When conducting the interview itself, the first thing you should always do is check if your equipment is recording (I once lost an entire interview because I forgot to turn on the recording device).
One technique for conducting the interview that comes highly recommended from various guides (and that works very well in my own experience) is to start off by asking the interviewee to tell their story in relation to what you want to hear about. Let them tell their story in full in their own words and only then start asking questions, either some you have prepared about the subject that haven't been covered yet or clarifications about what they said.
Also, if you prepare questions, start off with the simple questions (age, biographical data etc.) first and only then proceed to the more difficult ones.
Organize your questions chronologically. When people tell their own story they tend to organize them chronologically rather than topically, so accommodate that.
Give interviewees quiet time. Do not jump in as soon as there is a moment of silence. Sometimes people need a sec to organize their thoughts or maybe they will think of something. Give them a chance to. Often this leads to very interesting recollections.
Yes or no questions are not useful. Rather think of questions that start with "Can you tell me about..." or "Can you describe..."
After the interview, make sure to stay and chat for some time. Make notes on subject covered during the interview after you left. Make sure the interviewee has signed the forms that you can use the interview that you brought with you. Label the tape. And most importantly probably, thank the interviewee.
That broadly covers the subject. For further guides see
4 Answers 2016-11-28
I'm looking for an overview of Ancient Egypt (up to say the Roman period) that some might consider a classic or essential work. Or failing that, just a solid introduction to the subject. My amazon research has found the Toby Wilkinson book The Rise and Fall of Ancient Egypt and has good reviews, but I figured I would get the /r/askhistorians perspective before I buy anything.
1 Answers 2016-11-28
I'm just starting a re-read of Patrick O'Brien's awesome Aubrey-Maturin series, and something has stood out to me in the first book Master and Commander
Based on some action in the book, and I believe the books are considered pretty historically accurate, a Captain had the right to "rate" members of his crew as Midshipmen. And once a crewman was so rated, he had the opportunity to hopefully be promoted to Lieutenant (Leftenant? However the British spelling goes...) and then Captain, and so on.
Was it common for Captains to rate gifted sailors as midshipmen? And if so, could they reasonably hope to rise through the ranks in such a class-conscious society as historical Britain?
Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that boys who came from "good" families were already starting out as midshipmen, so crewman who had to be rated as such by their Captain must have come from the "lower" classes.
Or perhaps I am completely off the mark?
2 Answers 2016-11-28
It seems popular among online leftists to complain about people using the term "socialism" to refer to fundamentally capitalist systems with a lot of government support (e.g., Sweden). After a recent conversation, I realized that I don't really know whether this is justified - I don't know the history of the term at all. So: Is there as much of a historical claim to its usage for Sweden as there is for its usage for the USSR (setting aside whether the USSR was "really socialist")?
If this kind of terminological question isn't appropriate for this subreddit, sorry! Please let me know if there's a better place to ask.
2 Answers 2016-11-28
I mostly asking if their is any historical tolerance towards LGBT people or if it is just a coincidence.
1 Answers 2016-11-28
Last week I read an article in the Telegraph by Ian Bremmer (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/21/it-really-is-the-end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it-ian-bremmer-on-t/) he basically gives an argument that Pax Americana is over or ending. How do historians view these periods of so called peace. How have these periods typically ended and why?
1 Answers 2016-11-28
I sort of expect that the movie was depicting the hellish conditions of the camp and bad morale to bring across the 'war is terrible' theme. While I agree that war is most certainly not roses and sunshine, especially not during the cold winter of 1944/1945, I did expect the American army to have its shit sorted out a little more than the movie seems to show.
1 Answers 2016-11-28
What kind of papers would people carry around? Were the regional differences? What did men carry that women didn't? What about locals vs. tourists?
1 Answers 2016-11-28