This question may be beyond the scope of the subreddit... I understand the fact that the Mona Lisa was painted by Leonardo Da Vinci as part of his greater works, but what makes it more outstanding and significant than other portraits from the same era?
2 Answers 2016-06-27
First of all, I'm very sorry if this is a stupid question. Please do not tell me to "Google it"--I have already done so, and the answers all say that a majority vote is required to impeach the President (which I'm sure is correct). However, none of the answers cite the exact location in the Constitution where this is outlined, which is what I am looking for.
I know that /r/AskHistorians is very centered around citations, so could someone point me to the right location in the text?
1 Answers 2016-06-27
In terms of quality, I mean.
3 Answers 2016-06-27
I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask. But I came across this picture and was told it was Theodore Roosevelt. I'm a big fan but am not able to make the identification with 100% certainty. So I thought I would put it up here and see if anyone could help me.
1 Answers 2016-06-27
After the Third Sicilian War, Carthage gained control over Messina. As we know, the Mammertines shortly after took over the city and killed its population. Messina put Carthage in a position to hinder naval traffic between Italy and Sicily, and was very useful in Carthaginian control over the Mediterranean. However, the Mammertines ruled over Messina for over 20 years, and it wasn't until Heiro of Syracuse attempted to expel the Mammertines did they attempt to retake the city. So why didn't Carthage make more of an effort to retake the city earlier?
1 Answers 2016-06-26
1 Answers 2016-06-26
2 Answers 2016-06-26
Would one, for instance, be subjected to pretty much the same mix of intellectual influences and opinions in a Franciscan monastary in Ireland than in a Cistercian one in Italy, of would each monastary have it's own "personality", for lack of a better term?
1 Answers 2016-06-26
3 Answers 2016-06-26
2 Answers 2016-06-26
I can't tell you how many times popular portrayals of shieldwall formations by disciplined armies were so well coordinated that they did not have any holes or gaps in them that no arrows can possibly hit a single soldiers in the ranks. In fact disciplined armies such as the Normans are often portrayed as being so interconnected in their wall formations that there is no way for even an opposing army without a shieldwall to inflict casualties. So long as you remain in the wall formation your shield will protact you from any direct blow and the enemy soldiers would have to either break the formation by overwhelming with sheer numbers or hit with weapons strong enough to pierce or smash the shields of individual soldiers.If they can't do that and if they fight otuside a shield formation, you're guaranteed to win with minimal or even no casualties.
Pop media portrayals of the Greeks and Romans take this up to eleven in specific film portrayals where the Greek Phalanx and (especially) Roman Tetsudo are done with such coordination and discipline that they LITERALLY CONNECT like Lego pieces!
The opening scene from Gladiators where Roman legions battle Germaic barbarians exemplifies just how "perfectly" connecting the Roman Tetsudo is portrayed in movies and shieldwalls are in mass media in general. Not a single gap enemy arrows could penetrate and despite the terrains Romans were able to hold a near perfect front wall shield row while on the march.
However I was watching a historical reenactment the other day and I was absolutely shocked at just how much gaps there were int he Tetsudo formation just as practised by re-enactorrs. There was so much obvious holes that it looked like even a harpoon could enter the formation without a shield getting int he way and in the reenactment many participants admitted they were hit by arrows despite being in shieldwall.
In addition not counting the gaps, the shields did not look like they could connect perfectly like lego toys that is often portrayed in movies. Even when they stop marching and assume defensive position awaiting the barbarian rush the front row don't even look like a wall of shields more like individuals holding their shield outs. Despite attempting to interconnect their shields together as they awaited the Barbarian rush, they looked less like the wall in movies and more like barbarian hordes they were supposed to fight in the re-enactment.
Even the shields they wielded looked too bulky to ever "connect perfectly like lego pieces". I actually went and talk to some of the enactors to help me do an experiment in an attempt to imitate the Tetsudo in movies and when I tried to connect my shield to enacters side by side me, it was so damn difficult to literally make them touch each other and in fact the shields were of various sizes it was impossible to keep a symmetrical front row that looked perfect like in films.
Even when we did come close to copying placing the shields close together side by side, it was so skimpy trying to copy movie style shieldwalls that we could barely move forward in a march let alone swing our sword or thrust our spear. In fact in some attempts we were even literally touching each other should by shoulder and nd some of us got scratches and scrapes by our weapons and armor parts. We ultimately had to put some distance between our shields to effectively simulate swinging weapons.
I know we were just re-enacting but this event made me curious if the Shieldwall was not as fancy looking and perfect protection movies portray. The fact trying to connect it like lego pieces in the front row alone made it so tight we couldn't even march nevermind throw a spear. We even had difficulties getting out of the wall.
1 Answers 2016-06-26
Say that John is kicked in the head by a horse some time around the 18th century. Does John have a chance of making a recovery, or is he better off kissing a plague rat? If it's possible that John would recover, how would he do so and how long would it take? Thank you for reading!
1 Answers 2016-06-26
3 Answers 2016-06-26
4 Answers 2016-06-26
Hello r/AskHistorians,
I stumbled upon a supposed Karl Marx quote that I have been unable to confirm a source. Given that I am a graduate student in a history program, not being able to even get a hint in the right direction is certainly a rarity.
The quote is as followed: "...the impact of a more developed society upon a culture (or a series of warring cultures, since there was no such nation as India before the British Empire) can spread aspects of modernity and enlightenment that outlive and transcend the conqueror".
If I may ask, for the purposes of finding it easier and citations, if an answer can provide the edition and publisher of the source in which you found it as a larger text or the chapter if it is named. This would, obviously, not be needed for a shorter work such as an essay.
Also, if this is not considered the proper place (I am trusting historians to have a source rather than random history buffs) than I will remove this upon notification.
Thank you in advance.
1 Answers 2016-06-26
I've often read how in the pre-modern era romantic love didn't exist (or wasn't prevalent) outside the Greco-Roman/Western world. And that even in the west it was limited. Outside the western world, it is stated, that polygamy was the norm and the concept of love was unfamiliar until it was introduced in modern times. For example, I recall how a documentary deemed it unusual and extraordinary that Shah Jahan to build Taj Mahal for his favourite wife. But it was also noted that it wasn't that romantic since it wasn't his only wife (which I kind of think makes sense). I was currently reading this article which states
[Polygamy] made it easier for fathers to divide and share valuable commodities such as land with their children. Monogamy later got hijacked by romantic love by idealistic 19th Century Victorians. “The idea of sexual exclusivity started emerging fairly late in the game,” says professor of law Hadar Aviram at UC Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco, US
However, in my limited knowledge of one culture's history (my own, Iranian) I know quite a few stories in Persian literature which could easily be called love-stories. e.g. Shirin and Farhad. I know quite a few love-stories of Indian, Arabic and Turkish cultures (some of which are shared with Persian).
So how true is this assumtion? How is romantic love a construct of 19th century western culture (revived from Roman culture, apparently)? Am I missing something?
1 Answers 2016-06-26
To narrow it down, non-wealthy people in central Europe. Would they be drinking wine, beer, or liquor? What kind of music would they be listening to, what instruments? Would there be dancing?
1 Answers 2016-06-26
Who did they trade with? Did they have any colonies? How did they govern themselves?
Either I'm bad at searching, or the internet is practically devoid of any information about it.
1 Answers 2016-06-26
I may be horribly mis-informed but I don't remember any mention of buildings or any progressive technology compared to other races. Why were there no towns or cities as per other cultures?
1 Answers 2016-06-26
2 Answers 2016-06-26
In many tactical simulation games the Medieval army is organised like a modern army with clear battalions of set sizes of single unit types (cavalry, archers, swordsmen, spearmen, etc).
But how realistic is this? According to this comment by /u/MI13 there was no such organisation. So how was an army organised? What would have been the smallest unit, and who would have been in charge?
And when did Western Europe return to a clear unit organisation like the Romans had?
2 Answers 2016-06-26
Doing a little reading recently I saw that a number of European royals ended up living in the U.K. for much of the war (e.g. the Dutch, the Luxembourger). What was life like for them? Were there any English or Allied programs to help them out during the war?
1 Answers 2016-06-26
