his wikipedia summary

Fogel's first major study involving cliometrics was Railroads and American Economic Growth: Essays in Econometric History (1964). This tract sought to quantify the railroads' contribution to U.S. economic growth in the 19th century. Its argument and method were each rebuttals to a long line of non-numeric historical arguments that had ascribed much to expansionary effect to railroads without rigorous reference to economic data. Fogel argued against these previous historical arguments to show that onset of the railroad was not indispensable to the American economy. Examining the transportation of agricultural goods, Fogel compared the 1890 economy to a hypothetical 1890 economy in which transportation infrastructure was limited to wagons, canals, and natural waterways. Fogel pointed out that the absence of railroads would have substantially increased transportation costs from farms to primary markets, particularly in the Midwest, and changed the geographic location of agricultural production. Despite this consideration, the overall increase in transportation costs, i.e., the "social savings" attributable to railroads, was small – about 2.7% of 1890 GNP. The potential for substitute technologies, such as a more extensive canal system or improved roads, would have further lowered the importance of railroads. The conclusion that railroads were not indispensable to economic development made a controversial name for cliometrics.

For a very long time, some have dared venture into the open ocean in search of new lands, how did they find their way. The Europeans, developed at some point the use of the sexton but prior to that, what was used? For example how did Leif Erickson reach North America?

My five-year-old kid likes stories, and I like history, so I will sometimes tell him about interesting periods in history.

However, just the plain facts are not always that interesting to a five-year-old, so I'd like to talk more about historical characters - not necessarily those that have the most interesting story, but rather those that are good illustrations for important themes & concepts.

For example:

• Richard Lionheart's story is a good opportunity to talk about the crusades, the English royal line, the practice of holding nobles for Ransom money, and how much John Lackland sucked.

• William the Conqueror is an opportunity to talk about Vikings, the English Crown, Vassal-Liege relationships, and military technology (the use of cavalry, prefiguring the importance of knights)

Any other good ones like that? I'm mostly focusing on "medieval Europe" broadly conceived (knights and castles and all that, but possibly also the dark ages and late antiquity).

I know that the Cheka was founded by Felix Dzerzhinsky, a man who hated the Okhrana as much could be possible, but how did the Soviet Secret Police establish such ruthless efficiency without training and institutional experience? Were any former Okhrana trusted by/exploited by the Cheka?

What about the other Revolutionary presidents? We still consider the entire Western Hemisphere our sandbox so the Monroe Doctrine would also apply, but what else?

Unlike Western Europe amd East Asia, North America does not have a high-speed rail system, other than the Acela in Northeast corridor, which is slower than other HSR systems throughout the world. Has there been any reasons why these countries never built HSR, especially in areas like the Northeast corridor, California, and Windsor-Quebec City corridor, where population density is more rail-friendly? Were there any major pushes to build HSR throughout the second half of the 20th century or has it never gotten ,uch political traction?

[deleted]

A friend of mine told me that the reason why it is difficult (for the vast majority of Swedish natives) to find older relatives than from the 1600s/1700s, when doing genealogical research, is because Russians burned most church records along the Eastern coast of Sweden. [I can't remember which year(s) he said that this occurred during, but I assume it would have to be the 1600s/1700s. History is not my expertise.]

[deleted]

After the remilitarization of the Rhineland, the Anschluss, the Munich agreement, taking Memel from Lithuania and the First Vienna Award were all accepted by the Allied powers, was it possible for Nazi-Germany to just stop pushing world tension and remain at that state for decades to come? In stead of invading Poland and causing a World War? Would the Allies have accepted Germany to stay in this shape forever, controlling Austria, the Sudetenland, Bohemia, Moravia and Memel?

At what point in time was such long distance travel thought necessary, and how did they learn each other's languages? Would the average person have known about the discovery and what was going on at the time, or did they always have some sort of awareness of the other one?

Was there a point where contact was cut off, and what happened to lead to a rediscovery?

I'm 17, and I cannot see what is five feet in front of me. I can't imagine going to battle and having to use a bow an arrow without the ability to see. According to Wikipedia, glasses were invented around the 13th century, but they couldn't have been practical, or economically viable for until a few centuries later. What did people do to go about their lives before that?

I was doing a paper on battles in the western theater of the Civil War and noticed that there were a lot more sources on Vicksburg than Port Hudson. Everything I read about Vicksburg said it was more significant because it allowed the Union control of the Mississippi River. Port Hudson out lasted Vicksburg so shouldn't Port Hudson be considered more significant?

I've been interested lately in the pre-columbian history of Latin America, especially about the Olmecs, Toltecs, Mayas and Aztecs. I've bumped randomly while reading a webcomic on a mention of a Mayan godess of suicide. So I've searched and found the wikipedia page. Ok. Then, I've started reading a book about the Maya writing system, where the gods where mentioned. And she wasn't. When I've typed "Ixtab" into Google Images, most images that popped up where... Modern. Whereas when you type "Ach Puch" (Or God A) or I dont know, Kukulkan, you have a shitload of various representations.

So, this is my question: Is this godess legit, or is this some kind of misenterpretation gone mainstream ?

Thanks for any answers !

When reading "Who Dares Wins" by Tony Geragthy, he described SAS operations against known IRA militants,if they had the position of a IRA weapons catch, they(SAS soldiers) would stake out the location and if they had a confirmed IRA member approaching the catch, they were only allowed to engage them if they picked up the weapon and showed hostile intent. Was this a general order for British soldiers in Northern Ireland or was the ROE more restrictive for soldiers that were not special forces?

I heard from both my High-School history teacher and people on reddit that teenagers have a limited ability to understand history in the way for example a college graduate would. The example she gave was German feudalism, which in 9th grade (~age 15) was presented as a hierarchy with the king on top, and in 12th grade (~age 18) as a more complex system of a bargaining with several lords etc. (I'm sorry my memory might be a bit hazy on this).

Now, the point would intuitively make sense if we were talking about children who in many ways are developing faster than teenagers, but why is this still the case with teenagers, who after all have no problem comprehending other abstractions like higher mathematics or foreign languages? Is this due to neurological development, or more of a cultural thing, since a lot of our ideas about history are often molded by stereotypical or outright wrong depictions in media (or is it because of a completely different reason?).

I'm sorry if this is the wrong sub, I couldn't decide between r/Askhistorians and r/Askscience.

In movies today the Middle Ages, people always look filthy with dirt and grime all over their faces and clothes. Was it really that bad?

In terms of equipment, tactics, unit types, the way they were raised, etc.

I wrote "English" because I assume many of the troops fighting for the King of England were French or Welsh, not just English. I suppose by "French" I really mean "fighting for the King of France" since I could be wrong in assuming they were all French. (Plus, I guess "French" was a much vaguer thing then)

Because we at AH occasionally get questions about going to Grad School as a historian or with a history degree, we decided to have a series of Monday Method Threads where our flaired and non-flaired users could share their experiences, opinions and tips about going to Grad School.

Today's first installment will deal with rather basic questions: Should I go to Grad School? What really is the purpose of a Grad School education and does it make sense for me? What conditions will I find and under what conditions should I do it (get a PhD without full funding?)?

Ask your questions those who contemplate Grad School and share your thoughts those who are already in Grad School / have completed Grad School!

Nest week: "They'll take our lives but they'll never take our transcripts!" Grad School Admissions part 2: The Basics and getting started