I've read several accounts of what the diet of enslaved Africans in the United States was like. It varied by region — rice based in rice-growing areas. Corn-based elsewhere. They were often allowed to garden, and their diet included leafy greens, beans, watermelons, and a mix of other veggies and wild-caught fish (if they had a stream nearby).

But there seems to be disagreement among historians about the diet beyond that. Some claim that a slave working in the fields on a plantation was well fed because they were expensive investments that had to be maintained, and so ate 3500-4500 calories a day, though the food was pretty basic and often not of the best quality. These diets were probably nutritionally adequate. Some historians suggest that slaves ate better than poor whites.

Others says that they were lucky to get 1,800 calories a day from cornmeal and pork fat. I find figures like that unlikely — I've done heavy labor on a farm, and I lost weight eating 3,000 calories a day. You'd quickly have a slave who couldn't work if you only fed them 1,800 calories a day.

So do we really not know how plantation owners thought about providing food for slaves? I'm sure there was variation. But there must have been something of a standard approach to make sure the slaves didn't quickly become decimated by malnutrition/weight loss. Why is there widespread disagreement among historians?

What circumstances led Bismarck to make such a statement? What evidence did he have backing this statement? How much did he foresee with this prediction, if anything at all?

A "sickening sight" with a "list to the port" and "sails in rags" that requires constant pumping to stay afloat, to be precise -- with predictable results, namely getting sunk in one shot by an American merchant vessel. Were letters of marque really granted to vessels with such a low chance of success? Could any fisherman -- royalist or separatist -- really get their hands on one?

EDIT: Gah, "see serious naval action." At least it's an innocuous Freudian slip.

Are the lyrics about the "Winged Hussars" in sabatons song accurate?

Firstly, a big thank you to all that continue providing high quality answers week in week out.

I remember learning in school (in France) that Attila and his Hunnic troops used to cook their meat between their saddle and their horse while travelling across the steppes, deserts, and fields of Europe.

Is this one more myth, or is there some truth to this vague souvenir of mine?

Merci !

I'm nowhere near being a linguist, but it's an area of interest, and I'm trying to get something cleared up.

I know that Dutch comes from Old Dutch, or Old Low Franconian, which was spoken by the Franks, or at least a small percentage of them. I know that Old High German wasn't a unified language per se during the same time period, but a group of regional dialects that could be very different from one another, yet not so different as to be considered separate languages, like Old Low Franconian or Old Low German. I also know that over time, there was some effort to unify the German dialects of Alemannic, Bavarian, Thuringian, etc., indicating that the earlier tribes that had historically inhabited the regions where the dialects were spoken could not always so easily understand one another.

Given the above, why were Alemannic, Bavarian, Thuringian, etc. German eventually mostly unified into one language (even if some of them are still considered dialects to this day), but not Old Low Franconian, or for that matter, Old Low German? Why did the southern Germanic tribes that were conquered or assimilated by the Franks mostly speak a 'dialect' of the early German language, while the Saxons and northern Franks spoke their own separate 'languages'?

In the case of Saxony, I kind of get it, because I've often read about Charlemagne's brutal campaigns against them, and how hard it could be at times to subdue them as a people. But in that case, if the language distribution were to fall across political lines, wouldn't it be a matter of Old Dutch versus Old High German, with the Saxons also speaking Old High German as the centuries went by, or perhaps Old Dutch versus five or six other Germanic languages?

Were the Frankish nobility intentionally distancing themselves from the rest of the populace in a way that affected the development of these three languages, and Dutch and High German in particular?

I am looking for primary sources about the Justinian plague. It would be nice if you could link to it as well :) I am already familiar with the work of Procopius.

Anything related to how the plague might have effected the Byzantine civilisation (long term and short term) might be interesting as well

Thx!

So... A friend of mine has a dual masters in history and US history. I'm something of a history enthusiast myself though I lack the degree. I just like the books and learning about all the crazy shit humans have been up to.

Him and I had an interesting conversation recently. He stated that most Roman slaves had a 4 day work week, with way more holidays due to the celebrations of various gods.

There were of course, exceptions. Some job details of Roman slavery were basically death sentences, such as mine work.

My own research into the subject seems to back him up. 4 day work week and the holidays of various gods being observed, as well as harvest celebrations and other city celebrations. It also doesn't seem to make a difference when considering the time period of Roman history very much... the biggest split being pre and post Spartacus in terms of slave treatment. My own research seems to indicate that the average Roman slave, especially a skilled slave like a blacksmith is muuuuuch better treated and even paid better than the mechanic I am today.

Just curious what other historians thought about this.

To take the UK as an example in the napoleonic era war was seen as glorious, however, by the time of the 1920s it was seen as a nightmare by the general public.

For example Chamberlain said “armed conflict between nations is a nightmare to me” during the Munich crisis, just before WW2. Something that I don’t believe a prime minister would ever have said during the 19th century.

Similarly the once ubiquitous “Ministry of War” in most countries is now usually known as a “Ministry of Defence”.

I’m assuming it was because of WW1 but I’m curious to know what the tipping point was?

Because Jesus would have been “Joshua ben Joseph” and “Jesus” is the Greek translation… so why translate the one and leave the others?

I'm trying to understand in what point in history did the arabs become a majority in the Syria/Palestine area, and if there were any large immegrations before the islamic conquests, if so, how did they deal with locals and how did the locals deal with them, who were the locals?

You often hear about certain disturbing practices and institutions run by nuns but what where their motivations for being there in the first place? Simple piety? Escaping rural poverty? Being "sent to a nunnery" for being nonconformist? Not finding a husband at a "reasonable age"?

I have been into a deep search about Sparta recently, inspired by the curiosity of such a legendary city whose citizens were forbidden to keep historical records by law.

I read much from the basic sources to articles and internet videos which many don't match to one another.

But now I got to the point of Helot and Homoioi socio relations, I find out that despite the many mentions of abuses or ritualistic humiliation they actually lived fairly well and said abuses apparently started later after the 464BC Messenian helot rebellion which was sparked by a great earthquake that devasted Sparta, after this, the Krypteia was introduced.

It is impressive to learn the privileges that the Helots actually had, they were permitted to marry, raise their own families, own private property, retain 50% of their farming labors, have religious freedom, and buy out or earn by military service their emancipation.

In contrast to populations conquered by other Greek cities, the male Helot population was not exterminated, and women and children were not treated as chattel. Instead, Helots were given a subordinate position within Spartan society more comparable to the serfs of medieval Europe. Although Helots did not have voting rights, they otherwise enjoyed a relatively privileged position, in comparison to slave populations in other Greek city-states.

With such freedoms the helots created an identity of their own, the Messenians in special knew they were once a free people and it's of no wonder they were a constant struggle that the Spartans needed to deal with.

There is also the Methokes which were poor Spartiate children or of half helot ancestry which were basically Perioikoi with Spartiate privileges, and in special the Syntrophos a helot child that a Spartiate formally adopt and paid his way; if he did exceptionally well in training, he might be sponsored to become a Spartiate.

Another example in special is the fact that in 370 BC, when the Thebans invaded Lakonia and it looked like Sparta itself would fall, six thousand helots volunteered to defend the city and Pausanias who was turned on by helots when he promised them freedom and citizenship if they would join him in insurrection, and would help him to carry out his plans to the end.

With these things stated what more can be told about their relations and lives? seems like it's much more complex than I would like to admit. I would like if u/Iphikrates could give me light into it, but others serves too.

I just started watching History channels "America: The Story Of Us", and in the first episode they make this statement which I find remarkable since they also said that half the population died in the first winter. Also, considering how much immigration played a part in Americas history, this seems to be a pretty big number, so how true is this?

I've observed that indigenous people live in numerous areas in the Arctic (Alaska, Canada, Russia, etc.), yet I couldn't fail to notice when reading Iceland's history that it had no mention of indigenous people there. Why weren't there any indigenous people in Iceland?

I’ve noticed that there are a large number of questions asked on this subreddit that start with a ‘role play’ premise, e.g. ‘I am a farmer in C18th rural Virginia’. Is there a reason for this?

I have never come across historical questions being framed in this way before joining this subreddit, but see it all the time here. I’m in the UK and wonder if it’s a common way of asking questions in the US or elsewhere?

Edit: for anyone who frames questions in this way, I just want to make it clear that there is no criticism behind this question, so please accept my apologies if it came across in that way.

Just finished a book on the topic, which made it sound like it was widely accepted among those in power. The limiting factor was just the amount of resources allocated.

I hope this makes sense.

A year has 365 (and some change) days because that’s the number of days we have in one revolution around the Sun.

What made “the first day of the year” the first day? It’s not a solstice or equinox, which makes me wonder if there’s some other historical context.

Put another way, why didn’t we call what we know as June 13th the first day of the year?

The vikings had extensive contact with mainland europeans so why didnt they bring over diseases when they established colonies around 1100AD?

As well those diseases wouldve spread and then the natives wouldve had time to recover by the time colonialism hit?

Im writing a book as well, so my scenario to explain the masive native presence is that they gained their immunity to the old world diseases once the vikings came. It sounds feasible enough for a book but when i was writing i thought why didnt this happen in real life.