[deleted]

The more detailed accounts of this event say that it resulted from Dr. Köller removing a tourniquet off a patient’s finger, worried that it’s too tight. This was against orders of another physician, who then verbally abused him (using anti-semitic rhetoric) and physically attacked him. Köller succesfully defended himself and the other physician (Zimmer) got punched in his ears. This then led to a fencing duel, which, again, Köller won. Cool scientist: 2 Asshole: 0. Later Köller moved away from Vienna. I wanted to ask then - to what degree was the culture of duelling intertwined with anti-semitism and other bigotry? Is it possible to assess if being of a certain ethnic background or religion would make one more prone to getting challenged/having to challenge people to a duel (when this practice was common)?

Is the wealth divide between Eastern and Western Europe something that has always been present or is it something that only arose during the industrial or colonial periods?

Question as topic. I think researching by myself may be better than asking a redditor to try to summarise it.

Since herringbone weave was discovered long before viking era I though vikings might have used it. We were agruing with a friend of mine, but I could not find any reliable evidence.

One punishment in ancient Rome was death by wild animals in the theatre (venationes). What happenend to a convict if he or she managed to kill the animal? Did they go free? Did they have to fight again? Has this ever even happenend?

Where can I find German newspapers editorials and/or political interviews discussing Hitler in 1928 until the 1930 elections? Not to be "Trump=Hitler" melodramatic, but I was wondering if the political 'elites' of the Wiemar Republic thought of Hitler and the Nazis as a 'flame out' party like Trump was thought of in the first few months of the 2015 GOP primaries. I am curious at how much of a shock the 1930 and later July 1932 election was.

Total rookie at American history asking.

Read a bit about the Kincaid Mounds State where saw a picture of a village with cabins. Previously, I was under the impression that all native Americans used tents before the settlers came.

I'm asking primarily about the North East America during the Archaic Period.

What I mean is, the stories told in the Old Testament is one very linear, it has a clear progression of X happened, then Y, then Z, and so on. However, in other cultures, there seems only to be random myths dotted about. In Ancient Greece, for example, there's really only the trojan war (and it's surrounding myths) which form a linear story, whereas all the others have no specific time in the story set to them - they seem to be random and self-enclosed.

I've been doing a lot of reading tonight into the First Council of Nicaea. Inspired by watching the DaVinci Code (which I know isn't an accurate representation of the Council). From what I have read there are disputed claims ranging from the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth to canonizing the Bible in the Christian religion. Is there a more definitive source of what was the role of the First Council of Nicaea?

[deleted]

[deleted]

I've read that wax seals were meant to guarantee the authenticity of letters in ancient times. How hard was it to forge wax seals, and how often did this happen?

Were there any respected people in academia or elsewhere who thought it would be bad for the people of Germany? What happened to those people during Nazi rule? Was civil descent allowed to any degree?

Expanding upon this, are there any specific historians that have written on this subject in some form? I'm attempting to show how, arguably, it would seem that Jefferson has taken a rather hard hit in regards to public acceptance, while Hamilton has had an outpouring of it. I'm sure that, for eample, how people view/ed Jefferson's ownership and treatment of his of slaves has directly impacted how people at different points in history interpret/ed him as a public figure. Are there any sources you could suggest that can help me observe this phenomenon in a more academic way, instead of me just tossing assumptions out?

Thanks for any help, and sorry if this doesn't belong here.

So what were Gorbachev's original aims when he implemented those reforms? Didn't he see that the amount of openness being given by these reforms could awaken Russians and help to bring the USSR's downfall?

I know the Sami have similar traditional hats, but I don't see how the popular perception of Santa Claus could have originated from them, especially in the US.

I've been looking into the history of the Berlin Wall, and I'm just starting to realize that there was so much emphasis put on the Berlin Wall that I completely forgot about the Inner German Border.

Was the Inner German Border a physical border like the Berlin wall? If so, then how did people living in West Germany get to West Berlin? Were they able to pass the Inner German Border to get to the East in order to then get to West Berlin? I can't find anything online about this.

Also for note -- history is not my strong suit, as you can probably assume by the fact I was Googling the Berlin Wall. I would really appreciate answers that weren't too complex, I'm trying to brush up on my history as best as I can!

Appreciate the answers.

Hi everyone, Finishing up my Senior Seminar and after reading the rules and seeing a few other citation questions here, hope that it's not too much trouble to run some things by all of you. If I am wrong, then please let me know and I'll hide it.

1. When citing a journal entry in a published collection would this be the correct format for the footnote, I was unable to find how to footnote a diary entry in a published source? <i>=italicized

[1] (Indention) Edward Mott, "Journal of Edward Mott, 28 April 1775," in The <i>Spirit of ‘Seventy-Six<i>, ed. Henry Steele Commager and Richard B. Morris (New York: Harper & Row, 1975), 99. (This citation has already been approved by different professor, but I want to be double sure)

2. Hypothetically if I were to cite a different primary document from the Spirit of 'Seventy-Six, such as a report from one Jocelyn Feltham

Would I simply footnote it as this since it's a different source within the same source:

(Indention)Jocelyn Feltham, "Report of Jocelyn Feltham of the British garrison at Ticonderoga to General Gage, 11 June 1775," in The <i>Spirit of ‘Seventy-Six<i>, ed. Henry Steele Commager and Richard B. Morris (New York: Harper & Row, 1975), 99.

or would i need to somehow shorthand it since it's still from the same collection.

[deleted]

During the 17th-19th centuries, many cavalrymen opted to use ranged weapons and fight on foot during actual battle, while utilizing the speed of horses to move around the battlefield quicker when not in actual combat. These regiments were often known as dragoons. What I would like to know is, when these regiments took casualties while dismounted and fighting, what did they do with the horses that no longer had riders? Did they just let them go running off into the wild, or did they try to manage the logistical hassle of taking them with them?