Think Europe during the year 1200.

Whenever I think of medieval music, the same sounding tune comes to mind. I'm just curious as to whether there were any musical rebels during this time.

Hi there I'm going in to college (UK, so before Uni) next year from high school and aim in the future to get a job in a college/sixth form teaching Classics or Ancient History at A level and I was wondering what qualification if any in Latin or Ancient Greek would be needed.

One of the colleges I am considering going to study at offers Latin and A.Greek at GCSE level and the others do not (I think that college is the only one in the country to do so) so I was wondering, am I right in thinking you need a qualification in Latin or A.Greek to teach A Level Classics/A.History (my career aim) and if so would I be able to do it at University or is college my "last chance" ?

Thanks for any help

PS: Not sure if this is the right place to ask, but a kind person in the Academia sub-reddit directed me here

I wanted to entertain a different sort of question to you guys today. It is a bit more philosophical and more related to things like historiography than to history itself, but as historians I have no doubt you will have interesting answers.

My question is why should we study history? What is the purpose of this knowledge?

The main reason I ask this is because I was debating a history professor over a specific notion. You see, the reason I started studying history was to educate people about the past to understand the future, thus going to the old adage of preventing ourselves from making the same mistakes of the past. He disagreed, claiming historians don't think like that, but since this was during class there was not enough time to elaborate on our arguments.

In my opinion, history must be learned so we can understand our world today, as well as understand what course that world is moving towards. We must use the knowledge of past changes and issues to guide our course. However, many academics I have spoken to adopt a more passive outlook, simply seeing history as a way of categorizing the past. My argument is that learning about the past is useless if we don't apply it to the present and future. Knowledge for the sake of knowledge is useless, and it is part of the reason why academics have a reputation as snobbish and "highfalutin". To me, I see in the past that many learned men who could've stopped major tragedies instead chose to be passive with their knowledge, and I resent them for it. After all, evil men do evil things because good men sit by and do nothing. I personally started to study Middle Eastern history, particularly the history of Islam in the Near East, mostly to educate people about something they know so little about, to prevent them from making uninformed decisions and thus repeating past mistakes. I believe the greatest problem facing the modern world is that the ignorant feel so compelled to act, while the learned are so passive.

However, I want to hear the viewpoints of actual historians on this one. Do you guys agree or disagree with my viewpoint? Do you have other viewpoints you would like to suggest?

I always thought of roadside diners as a 1950s thing.

[deleted]

The myth tells about a single medicine women who meets a man and falls in love, the man is killed by a rival tribe and the medicine women grieves over him, a pool was also in the setting of the story, can anyone help me out with finding this myth?

I'm from an engineering and physics background where unless you are on the very bleeding edge things are VERY certain on what is "correct" (until a new breakthrough that only happens once in several hundred years). However in History I often have trouble that many historians will disagree even on very seemingly basic accounts of what occurred. Even up into very recent history (last 100 years) like the politics of the reasoning in the US Constitution. I guess my question is what's the best way of finding out the most correct version of history without people putting political slant into historical events. Even middle school and high school text books seem to swing wildly on exact accounts of what occurred in history. This is extremely frustrating for someone who is used to certainty in knowledge. Am I just doing things wrong?

So much for the special relationship...

Idk but it just popped into my mind recently. How was language developed? How did early humans decide that "Oh this thing should be called a tree". I know it may seem vague, but having no precedent, how was language 'made'?

I.e. during the high middle ages.

The title basically, why did Queen Victoria and not Empress Victoria reign over the British Empire? Or, going back even further to before George III gave up most of his power, why was it King George III and not Emperor George III ruling the British Empire?

I'm just getting into history so I really don't know a lot. But I want to understand why so-called "Environmental Determinism" is wrong? It seems like the environment would play a big part in how different civilizations played out. And if it is wrong why were the people in Europe so much more technologically advanced than say the people of north America.

Anyway, thanks for reading and I hope this isn't a stupid question.

I mean, they lost Transylvania, Croatia and Slovakia which was about 50% of their territory while they had done, seemingly, nothing. Why was this?

I'm from Australia but I guess this could apply to anywhere.

Do I catch a wagon, assuming they go where you wanna go? Would it be exorbitant to hire a private wagon?

Do I hire a horse and take it the whole way? Or to a midpoint to hire another horse?

Is there a horse-taxi?

Edit: Overland route please...

I'm currently reading Emperor Charles V, Impresario of War: Campaign Strategy, International Finance, and Domestic Policies by James D. Tracy, and this claim came up.

Was it a way of forcing Charles's territories to contribute more money to him, which he'd then transfer to his grandfather (and would indirectly help him too, as he was heir to the Habsburg lands)? Was Maximilian the recipient of Netherlandish revenues up until Charles's majority and was the 150,000 gulden thus seen as a form of compensation for lost revenues?