When someone in the ancient world is said to have a fortune of x talents, y drachma or z denari - or if a medieval fortune is described as being so many gilders, doubloons, or ducats - how exactly can an historian equate this amount of money to modern day purchasing power?

Do they tie it to a common commodity like the price of bread? Or do they just take the current value of the gold or silver in the coins in question?

Is such a comparison even meanful since much of what we can buy today would be inconceivable to someone in the past?

If so are there any that can be viewed online or have been reprinted?

This might be too broad of a question, but it is something I've wondered for a while. Was there a time when most universities changed to instructing in local languages or was a it a gradual process? Was there a huge movement in the reformation? The enlightenment? Under the influence of 19the century nationalism? Even later? I know that a huge part of medieval education was to gain competence in Latin in order to engage in the intellectual life.

I see that, for example, Wittenberg moved to German in the 18the century, but Charles University in Prague didn't shift to Czech and German until the 19the century.

Did certain areas like England make the shift far earlier? I know many Scottish nd English students pursued degrees in, e.g. Leiden in the 17th century. Would that necessitate the education being in Latin? Likewise, did any of the earliest American universities like Harvard ever use it as their medium of education? Thanks for your help and sorry if this has been addressed in other threads. A search did not reveal any dealing with it.

How, why, and by whom was that decision made? Surely it would have made more sense to elect a Swedish noble or some distant relative of Charles XIII instead of a French marshall, and effectively making a new, French royal family in Sweden?

I know the story about the Turin horse, but what caused him to go embrace the horse and collapse? Was it apparent in the years before, or was it sudden? Did it have anything to do with his thinking, or was it all physical?

Hey, everyone. So I'm reading about the Thirty Years War and could use a little clarification on this. So Matthias was the Holy Roman Emperor as well as the King of Bohemia and King of Hungary. Ferdinand was elected to follow Matthias as King of Bohemia in 1617. Did he become the king right after the election, or was he supposed to become king once Matthias died? I know that things got all screwed up with the Defenestration of Prague and the election of Frederick to be king, etc. etc. But I don't quite understand if Ferdinand was actually king by that point, or just kind of a "king-elect."

Also, a related question: How did Ferdinand II die? None of the sources I have give a cause of death.

[deleted]

Did France or UK or anyone realize that Hitler was a threat before WWII? Why didn't they interfere before it was too late?

The question pertains to only those places and times where Christianity was extant, pagan worship prior to that isn't what I'm asking about.

Also, I am familiar with Anton Lavey and his movement doesn't count either. He adopted the name "satanism" to stir controversy as far as I can tell.

I'm also old enough to remember the Satanic Panic of the late 1980s... which as far as I can tell was as empty as Al Capone's safe (looking at you, Geraldo).

Were there ever any movements or secret societies where at least some of the members believed in the Devil/Satan, and worshipped him in some fashion or another? If so, what details are known about the origin of said cult, or about their activities?

So, my understanding of this is basically as follows: the 1896 election was a realigning election that defined a lot about party politics in the United States today. Before 1896, the Democrats were basically the more conservative of the two parties, but William Jennings Bryan hijacked the Democratic nomination and pushed the party to the left of the Republicans. McKinley then won by outspending Bryan. At the end of the process, we had two conservative presidents in a row (Cleveland and McKinley) but the parties had switched sides. The way the election campaign was fought also had a big influence on contemporary politics.

How so? Also, how was Bryan able to simply take the the nomination from Cleveland, who was a sitting president? What were the differences and similarities between the two parties between then and now?

So let's say I'm a peasant of some sort in 1400's (or whenever really) Europe and I decide I want to be a mercanary. How attainable is this for me? Assuming I have money can I just buy weapons and sign on to a mercanary group? Was there some sort of screening process? Were mercanaries a family occupation like farming? Were there legal barriers; government certifications and the like? Obviously the likelyhood of becoming one depends alot on the demand for violence at the time (i.e. ongoing wars) so let's say there's a major war going on.

The wikipedia entry mentions that they might have left, maybe to try and attack the rear, but this seems like a terrible mistake by the Persians. Presumably they would have recognized that the Greeks were vulnerable to cavalry?

Then for discussion: How long would a group tend to linger before traveling again? They were nomadic so didn't have permanent dwellings. Did that mean they carried tents with them? Their supplies. Did they have wheels back then?

How easy was the prey to catch back then since they didn't evolve with humans?

Was there a population explosion because of the relative ease of killing prey?

Was there a die-out once the prey became scarce(extinct?)?

Squanto's story is incredible to me, and based on my limited historical knowledge he seems to be unique in that he

• made multiple (six!) trans-Atlantic trips,

• was captured by and escaped from three different factions, including Europeans and Native Americans, and

• leveraged his language knowledge to influence political relations between the Wampanoag and the Pilgrims.

So my question is, is my impression accurate that Squanto is unique in these regards? Also, are there any similar historical figures in the 16th-19th centuries from cultures Europeans were colonizing who could compete with Squanto for exceptional life anecdotes?

Bach wrote over 1,000 pieces of music, Telemann wrote 3,000, Mozart wrote over 600, and many other composers pre-1900 have written hundreds of pieces of music. Why has that number gone down so much, and who would be the most prolific composer within the last 50 years or so?

I decided to give the Washington Post's new podcast, Presidential a try. My opinions on the quality of the podcast aside, I recently listened to the episode about John Adams which featured an interview with David McCullough.

At one point during the interview, McCullough made the claim that Adams was the only founding father to never own slaves. I've never read any of his work, but a quick Google search showed me that he's made this claim several times.

I'm curious as to the accuracy of this claim. Certainly there were other founding fathers (e.g. Thomas Paine) who didn't own slaves either. Is there some sort of narrow alternative definition of founding fathers that makes his claim true, or is McCullough off base?

Hello! So I'm writing a little Western adventure novel, and I have a pet peeve with historically inaccurate fiction, so I'm trying to avoid historical errors when I can. The protagonist of my book uses a Colt Dragoon revolver (which I believe was first made in 1848, but I'm not too sure. The book is set in 1853, if that's of significant importance to this question). I looked up a video of a guy using one, and what struck me the most was that the cylinder didn't swing out like on a modern revolver, nor did it break like with a double-barreled shotgun. Instead, the shooter loaded all of the cylinders one by one (first pouring in gunpowder, then pushing in the bullet), without opening the cylinder in any way. Was this generally accurate for revolvers of that era? Or did they already come up with modern-type bullets and openable cylinders by the eighteen fifties? Much appreciated!