I mean, can historians who argue that the past can be understood/accessed through a scientific methodology/professional training believe in the postmodern view that, for example, the the process of writing history inevitably involves the use of literary structures, tropes and techniques?

[deleted]

I would guess that during the French revolution France was so poor and miserable that the people revolted and started the french revolution.

WHat I don't understand is how were they able to afford to have and supply the Grand Army commanded by Napoleon? A poor empire I would assume wouldn't be able to afford the most powerful Army in the world.

This is a genuine question that has been bugging me for years. Please help me settle it for good.

Alright, we have two things to consider here: first, the vast geographical diversity of human socio-political experience from Asia to Africa, Europe and the Americas; and second, the thousands of years of fully or partly-recorded civilisational history.

Within these two dimensions we have literally thousands of human societies, from every imaginable religion, politics, economy, sociality, and physicality (colour, hight, genes… etc.),

So… this could be seen as a comprehensive, lengthy and diverse scientific experiment to determine if the female gender can ever reverse gender rules and dominate over men.

My question is: has this ever happened in a practical, daily, and structural way?

Thank You

[deleted]

I know, for instance, a few classical greek family names. But it seems to be used less often than medieval family names.

I was just looking through notes I took down at an event to transcribe and start sorting them. I was listening to the soundtrack to Hamilton while I was doing this, a musical about a man who wrote like a fiend.

In fact, his voraciousness as a writer is a big reason why I hold him in pretty high regard. He was a man who understood what it feels like to have an idea in your head that you can't push out into the world fast enough. He really wrote like he was running out of time, a feeling I can sometimes sympathize with.

But as I was writing this out, I realized something incredibly important: Hamilton wrote at the insane pace that he did and all before typewriters existed. He wrote every single thing he ever wrote with a QUILL. Not a pen.

#A QUILL.

Yet his handwriting is ridiculously formal! I get that people back then had to write everything without a typewriter, so they had a lot of practice. But there are two clearly identifiable states of Hamilton's penmanship, or really anyone's penmanship: when they are attempting to write as properly as possible, and when they are prioritizing time over clarity.

Even Hamilton's second state of penmanship is excellent! I would not be able to read my secondary handwriting if I didn't read it within a week of writing, otherwise all the context integral to the act of deciphering it would completely disappear.

Hamilton and writers of his time wrote with amazing clarity and style — we clearly don't.

Is it entirely because of the introduction of keyboards, or was there something else going on?

Have we only seen the best writers of the period, because the rest of the population was poor and didn't know how to write? Do we see bad handwriting today because it has become so completely spread (at least in first world countries) that everyone can do it, and the introduction of keyboards hasn't made us get any better?

Or were people back then thinking about handwriting, language, and communication in a completely different way than we do today?

TLDR

Why did Revolutionary period writers write so damn well? Or perhaps the better question is, "Why didn't they write poorly?"

This might have been answered before but I couldn't find an answer.

Basically if you study history of warfare people always say that Sun Tzu, Clausewitz, Napoleon, Gustavus Adolphus, etc was the father of modern warfare. So out of every famous general who was the real father of modern war?

Also related question what was the first modern war because I always here The US Civil War, WW1, Iraq War, etc get referred as the real one.

Have any examples of tattoo art from this era survived?

By this I mean did they prefer a Christian or Muslim victory? Or were the treated the same by both party? And did they simply have a preference of victor or did they take up arms for one side or the other?

[deleted]

How hard would it have been for a non-practicing, ethnically ambiguous looking Jew to blend in with the crowd/avoid detection in Nazi Germany?

Are there there any examples? If so did they stay or try to escape? If they did stick it out all those years, how were they viewed by other Jews who were not so fortunate?

Edit: Thanks for the answers!

For war specifically.

As another poster noted, anatomically modern humans have existed for upwards of 200,000 years. But the first instances of crop domestication and agriculture all occur within the last ~10,000 years or so. This is true even in populations that have been completely developmentally isolated for over 10,000 years in the Americas. Is there an explanation for this sudden, roughly simultaneous emergence of agriculture? Or have I framed the wrong question?

I'm guessing people started having surnames sometime during biblical times? I say this because the traitor disciple, Judas, had what appears to be a surname (Iscariot), and there was Mary Magdelene, but most people from the Bible seemed to just have one name...Joseph, Abraham, John, etc. etc. Or perhaps Iscariot and Magdelene weren't surnames (though I don't know what else they would be) exactly and those came later than biblical times?

I'm basically wondering when and where along the way someone decided "hey, one name just isn't cutting it, we need a way to tell all these Johns apart, let's start giving people surnames"?

I'm unable to find any use of smoke in depictions of D-day, was there a reason why?