In modern art and media the Knights Hospitaller are nearly always shown as wearing near completely black tabards or surcoats. I remembered a lecture from a few years ago though, where a domestic historian/enthusiast who specialised in the medieval period claimed that black dye was the hardest and most expensive of all to make, and clothes in that colour were only worn by the rich. From some preliminary research on google, I've seen that some enthusiast sites don't really come to a strong conclusion about it.

So my question is, how inaccurate is our typical depiction of Hospitaller troops (including Knights, Sergeants, lower ranking members, etc) all wearing black surcoats and tabards? How difficult and/or expensive was it to really dye clothes black?

Sorry if the title is poor, english is not my main language.

When did russian consider themselves a people seperate from other slavs? When did russian (or slavic i guess) nationalism start?

EDIT: The word "of" is missing in the title, my mistake. Supposed to be "What is the earliest mention of a russian people?"

It seems to me that persecuting Jews was something the Nazis really believed in and that it was not entirely opportunistic scapegoating. Holocaust was supposed to remain a secret so it was not for propaganda, not to mention that killing off potential slaves is a terrible policy even for a completely amoral movement. Now, it is also obvious that a global Jewish conspiracy doesn't in fact exist. What made Hitler and the others believe that it did exist?

In media surrounding Rome people are often depicted as being very casual about sex, I was wondering how much this reflected reality. Any book recommendations on the topic would also be greatly appreciated.

I know of only 3 different languages - arabic, english and burmese.

In each of those languages "dog" can be used as an insult towards another person. "You fucking dog" is oddly enough, a phrase used in my own society to denote a traitor or someone that is morally corrupt. To call a person a "fucking cat" however would not carry any sort of derogatory connotations, rather it would be a laughable try at an insult.

I have also however noted that "dog" is also a term that is used in Arabic and Burmese to insult another person. For instance, in burmese "kwih"(dog) when sworn at another person is used to suggest that the person is uncivilized, filthy and having no virtue or honor. The same is true AFAIK in Arabic.

Its particularly strange to me that "dog" can be used as an insult in the west since our society tends to place a pretty high status for dogs - i.e man's best friend. How did the word "dog" evolve into an insult? Why "dog" in particular as opposed to other domesticated animals like cats or birds?

At some point during WWII did the German High Command consider the possibility that their communications were compromised, particularly the U-Boat force when their casualties started to rise? Or was it another one of the taboo subjects that Hitler refused to consider or discuss?

Even famously republican forms of government, such as the Roman Republic, defined themselves in the context of surrounding monarchies. Why are monarchs so ubiquitous across history and geography?

I've been listening to Hardcore History and there's one thing I can't get my head around. When I think of Steppe tribes I imagine a couple of dozen tents and 100 or do people living together, living off the land, moving around slowly to find food.

Not exactly the kind of scale from which you could even begin to build a feared army.

Were these tribes 100s or thousands of people? And if there were thousands then how could they all be fed without farming? The Mongols were hunters, not farmers. How could hunters kill enough food everyday to feed the town?

Browsing through Wikipedia (I know...) I came across this quote on the page for Kaiser Franz II - Francis presented himself as an open and approachable monarch (he regularly set aside two mornings each week to meet his imperial subjects, regardless of status, by appointment in his office, even speaking to them in their own language)

Now I know that Franz was called der Gute Kaiser Franz, although perhaps with a touch of irony. Even so it's hard to picture the Austrian Emperor meeting with lowborn subjects in such a way during the Age of Absolutism.

Was this really something that Franz II did? How would a Bohemian farmer or a Hungarian city dweller even go about 'scheduling' an audience of this sort? And do we have any records of what these meetings may have gone like - what sort of things were said to the Kaiser, what his replies were, what if any actions they resulted in him taking?

Thanks in advance.

Edit: I don't know why it Flair'd as farming, I don't think I set it as that.

In game of thrones they talk about songs that tell historic stories and battles. I guess I'm assuming this is based off truth, and if it is what cultures did this? I want to hear songs like this but that are real.

Things like the Arc de Triomphe, Statue of Liberty, Sphinx, Trevi fountain, and Cristo Redentor? Did they just have more money back then? I know there are still war memorials, but theyre usually small scale or plain looking. There are art installations too, but often theyre small and plain too, and for the most part semi-permanent. The only modern instance I can think of outside of Asia, is the St. Louis arch. Is there a reason for the decline in state sponsored art?

[deleted]

I read (via a TIL today) that they started their nuclear program in 1948, had the bomb by 1979, and gave it up shortly before the end of Apartheid. This made me think, perhaps erroneously, that white South Africans didn't trust a black South Africa with the bomb, which in turn made me wonder... Is it possible that all the way up through 1979, many white South Africans may have thought Apartheid was indefinite, and more importantly, that it would be accepted indefinitely by the international community?

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

What did they do? What did they wear? What was their role?

I need to find primary sources with regards to Japanese, Korean and Mongol bow and arrow tech.

I'm clearly not doing anything right so I'm trying out reddit.

In the bigger scheme of things, how do you guys find primary sources? Pictures are clearly easier to find but textual stuff..?

Hey there, /r/askhistorians! I've been doing a little reading, and one of my books is Communism: The God that Failed, edited by Richard Crossman. In the introduction to my edition of the book, Crossman said this:

Communism has had much more success in Catholic than in Protestant countries. The Protestant is, at least in origin, a conscientious objector against spiritual subjection to any hierarchy. He claims to know what is right or wrong by the inner light, and democracy for him is not merely a convenient or just for of government, but a necessity of human dignity."

Richard Crossman, ed., Communism: The God That Failed (New York: Harper & Row, 1963), p. 7.

I of course won't co-sign Crossman's statements on the relationship between Protestantism and democracy, but I am curious about what he said in regards to Communism. For you historians of Communism, have there been any studies done regarding the success of Communism in Protestant compared to Catholic cultures? If not, why might Crossman have believed Catholicism was more amenable to Communism? If it helps, according to the publication data this book was first published in 1949, and Richard Crossman was a member of the Labour party in England at the time he wrote the introduction.

Thanks for your time and any help you might be able to render!

Additionally, why were Atlantic City place names chosen?