I heard about this on a conversation about Trotsky vs Stalin and the only source I can find is Wikipedia and the source for the Wikipedia article is from a 25 dollar book.

The reference is found in the first chapter of the book, also citing Plato's complaint about Hellenic youth found in the seventh book of Laws, by Plato. However. I could not find a source on it. Is it a false claim? Was Sagan relying on a false claim to do that affirmation?

Currently reading the poem “The Wanderer,” and I was curious about the apparent exile of the ex-thane in the poem. Some analyses imply that the thane was exiled, perhaps asked or forced to leave his country and people, and other ones imply that he was self-expunged. Either one would make sense to me, but more so the latter especially in the context of this poem because he lost his fellow thanes as well. I am wondering, in reality, what would happen to a thane or thanes who have lost their king or lord, in battle, old age, etc.? Would they serve a different one? Would they get forcibly exiled or go on self-exile? Historical context if needed: Comitatus during the Middle Ages of Europe, and the poem is from the Exeter Book c. late 10th century IIRC.

It is frequently said the Black Plague contributed to the fall of Feudalism and the rise of a middle class because wages for labor and privileges for common folk had to increase because so much land had to be worked by so few people.

But for someone to get increased wages, they have to have negotiating power, which stems from:

1. Knowing that somewhere else there's an unmet demand for their skills in return for greater compensation
2. A legal ability to move elsewhere (not being bound by any contract) and to a lesser extent, familial ability (their children/spouse can move with them).
3. Cash to survive the unemployment period between jobs, as well as to fund travelling expenses

All of these were hard to come by in the Middle Ages. There were no job boards detailing where workers were needed the most, and without coming into contact with travelers (merchants, soldiers, government magistrates etc) which were rare one wouldn't learn of job opportunities outside his village.

A lot of farmers were serfs bound to the land they worked, so even if labor was in greater demand in France Comte for example, it would make little difference to a serf living in Normandy since he was bound to the land.

And the most important point of all - travel. Many simple workers paid their tenancy to their suzerain in labor, and barter was used for whatever little property and services peasants consumed. Even if there was some greater demand for labor with better pay somewhere else, how would a simple peasant pay for that kind of trip? He cannot just carry a goat and two free tool repairs the smith owed him for last weeks sack of barley.

This also creates some kind of a paradox (for me at least). For people to engage in any non-subsistence activity (being a farmer somewhere else or being a carpenter) they need to personally have cash, and to live in a country with enough currency to enable such cash payments. Yet for a cash economy to exist, there needs to be a class of people that do non-subsistence labor.

So what comes first? Non-subsistence labor dependent on the availability of cash, or availability of cash dependent on non-subsistence labor? And how can it all come to fruition when the technological (slow spread of news) and cultural (land bound serf work) environment work against it?

I’m reading David Cordingly’s Under The Black Flag, and he makes a point of saying that blacks were viewed as property, that Caribbean pirates from the Golden Age of Piracy were participants in the slave trade. He goes on to dispel the romantic belief that blacks could become officers of a crew or were granted freedom by captains. However, he later mentions Black Caesar, a black pirate who notably served as a Lieutenant on Blackbeard’s crew. Along with popular media (Assassin’s Creed Black Flag, the Starz show Black Sails) depicting pirates freeing slaves or working with blacks to directly oppose the slave trade, Cordingly’s book makes the distinction between buccaneers, privateers, corsairs, privateers, etc. and then promptly throws them out, saying many called Francis Drake all of those terms, depending on their nationality. While I understand at the time a privateer from one nation would be called a pirate by another, I figure any privateers working for an empire that runs on the slave trade are more likely to support the slave trade themselves, so conflating these terms also makes me less confident in his blanket assertion.

Past just whether pirates viewed blacks as slaves or people, I wonder how much variation there was between pirate captains on this view, and whether pirates in the Caribbean, Mediterranean, African Coast, and Indian/South Asian seas held different views? Thank you in advance for your answers!

While I understand that MOST wouldn't have been executed, I've always wondered what they would do afterwards. Would I be reprimanded in any way or simply get a pat on the back and a "ah you gave it your best" kinda thing?

During the Napoleonic Wars, cavalry could be a decisive factor in a battle. Every power had its own armored cavalry — or, "cuirassiers." During the wars of the middle 19th century — Crimean War (1853-1856), Second Italian War of Independence (1859), Austro-Prussian War (1866) and Franco-Prussian War (1870) — cavalry continued to be used. How effective was it? Did more advanced firearms make cavalry much less effective than it had been earlier in the century? And what about WWI? Were there any major cavalry engagements on the Eastern or Western Fronts? Compared to the Napoleonic era, when did armored/melee cavalry become less valuable? Additionally, when did it become completely obsolete and simply a waste of resources?

I do t know about you all, but at this time of year I always hear people talking about how "Christmas stole pagan and historic traditions" talking about everything from the tree, the time its run, to St Nicholas and everything in between. I always wonder, how much of this is actually a conceted effort by the very early Catholic Church to 'steal' pagan traditions and how much is people retaining their own traditions and simply adapting them to Christianity

Due to the state of Austrian politics, the discussion around the so-called "Ständestaat", i.e. the government of Austria from 1933-1938 (with the caveat that the official constitution dates from May 1934), has gained traction once again.

However, the public discussion of the topic ranges from the picture of "Austrofaschismus" as a murderous villain state second only to Nazi Germany to the somewhat euphemistic "Kanzlerdiktatur" to outright claims of a benevolent not-quite-democracy. These views are more ore less obviously coloured by the (current) political views of their proponents.

Is there a current discourse in academia that takes a more nuanced approach? If so, does the system compare to the regimes of say, Italy or Spain, or is it an autocracy sui generis?

In a time of darkness, in a place devoid of hope, a few champions stood between humanity and the galactic threat of the apocalypse of the forgotten past. Without these purveyors of the past, these archivists of antiquity, these reporters of the ancient record, half the population of the redditverse might puff out of existence with the snap of a finger. Today, three more heroes of history have joined the ranks of the Avengers of History! Those who would destroy the past will be naught but [removed] in the wake of their mighty mod suits.

Behold! u/Coeurdelionne rides into modship on a glorious steed slaying all shitposters before them. Carrying the Mind Stone, this mod enforces the appropriate use of sources by the various nefarious denizens of reddit.

Behold! u/snipahar peers through the stellar networks to pull all knowledge into its appropriate categories. With the Space Stone, this mod will shape the subreddit into an even more glorious form.

Behold! u/J-Force delves into the heart of users and ensures that their ways are pure of motive. Bearing the Soul Stone, this mod guides the heroes into appropriate action to delete any who stand in the way of historical knowledge.

The will go forth into all thematic clusters of Askhistorians defeating the forces of Historical Yahoos Doing Research Atrociously (HYDRA). As they join the Avengers of History, they will increase their power until no number of META posts calling for an “answered” flair will remain. They will lead us into a brave new world in which all posters use the search function and review the FAQ before asking “Did Japan surrender because of nukes or the Soviets?”

Heroes walk in Reddit. What a time to be alive.

It is time to party!

There are a few well known cases of large realms being split upon inheritance, but how common was that?

I've been playing a lot of Crusader Kings 3 (a strategy/role-playing game set in medieval europe/asia/africa), in which almost all realms (except those with elected rulers such as the Holy Roman Empire) always split between all eligible heirs of a ruler when he died. But if that was realistic, all realms which don't expand constantly would be split into lots of tiny bits within just a few generations. Is that how it was historically, or was the splitting of realms upon inheritance much more rare than it is in that game? Or is there another reason?

I understand both the military leaders really wanted to win, but why is it, that with so many people dying for literally nothing, they didn't withdraw the army for four years? Is it just pure cold-bloodedness? Were they too proud to withdraw? I genuinely don't understand. If I was in charge, I would for sure try to at least get in touch with the other side to try to somehow settle this nightmare ... Or did one side reach out for a compromise and the other side simple didn't want to? But why?

Also, how come the soldiers never refused to waste their lifes away? If they're going to die anyways, it seems more logical to deny your duty as a soldier, as you at least won't be responsible for the death of other people, right??

It seems in recent years, especially in popular media (e.g. "The Man Who Invented Christmas"), there's this idea that Christmas wasn't important to the average person. This strikes me as wrong, but I don't know much about the historical celebration of the holiday outside of other works of fiction (e.g. depictions of celebrations in "War and Peace").

So my question is multipart: 1) Was Christmas a "minor liturgical holiday" before Dickens? 2) If it was minor, is that throughout Christendom, limited to the Anglospheeic countries, or only in the UK? 3) Was the holiday more or less important across social classes?

To clarify, by "important" I don't mean so much in the religious sense, but in the festive and sentimental sense.

I have been reading Machiavelli's Discourses on Livy and he seems opposed to war (only a 1/3 the way through though), yet in modern times he's portrayed as the penultimate "Drum-beater" – or "Drum-beating herald" so to speak.

I guess I just don't understand a lot of what he read, wrote, or thought and was wondering if you could help paint a better portrait of him than his books do.

Thank you.

I’m interested in Arabian and Islamic folklore, mythology, and oral tradition. I have been looking for story compilations & scholarly books on the subject but haven’t turned up much, yet. Are there any works out there that aren’t the 1,001 Arabian Nights or the Holy Qur'an?

Might be wrong about the numbers or statements. We hear of some communities that still speak French here and there in Louisiana, but it's really "quiet" compared to Quebec, whose independence movement is fairly well-known. Quebec is even considered a separate nation within Canada, added French as their official language

Obviously, French settlers would have constituted a much smaller proportion of the US population than in Canada, but still the disparity seems pretty stark. Were the French in USA treated worse/better? Was it because USA was/is a much more popular destination for migrants, so their identity got muddled?

Growing up I always heard that the end of the Viking age came when the Norwegian forces lost the battle of Stamford bridge and never learnt about the societal differences that lead to the end of the Viking age.

There isnt too much i could find on victorian mourning clothes for men

Is Curiosity Stream reliable and accredited by the historians?

During my personal research, I've often found such claims that the first decades of raids associated with the beginning of the age (from Lindisfarne in 793 to the Siege of Paris in 845) were not just a sudden interest in raiding new territories to the west, but an actual act of retribution motivated by the eastern conquests of Charlemagne, the slaughter of Saxons and the forced christianization in what is today North Germany.

How true is that?