I'm looking to broaden my knowledge of that period of U.S. history, with particular interests in labor conflicts, especially those of the West. Think the Ludlow Massacre and the Johnson County War, and figures such as Mother Jones. I've looked at the book recommendations page for that time period of U.S. history, but I was wondering if people could offer specific suggestions for what they feel are the best introductions for new students on the subject, with possible suggestions for jumping off points after a few good foundational texts.

I'd also be interested in more broadly oriented works on that time period - roughly 1880-1920, especially books that provide important context to U.S. labor conflicts.

Popular culture, books, tv and movies always state that Disco Demolition Night at Comiskey Park in Chicago in 1979 ended the disco era. What were the "real reasons" for the decline in disco (if there is any tangible evidence)? How strong is the correlation between the event and the end of the genre? Is there any statistical evidence to back up the claim? I've constantly wondered about this. Thanks!

For most of my life I thought it was silly and pompous, especially with the English and their silly wigs, but recently I realized it kinda makes sense. Judges are supposed to be impartial and represent Justice. If judges wore their own clothes, it would appear they are biased in favor of the side dressing similarly or wearing the same symbols (i.e. a cross necklace) as them. The sides could also start imitating the judge's attire to appease them, all of which would distract from the case and its essence in favor of form. However, when judges wear robes they all look the same, yet different than anyone else, most importantly those they're judging, but they're still human. In the end, it appears as if Justice itself (with a human face) is judging you rather than John Doe.

I was interested in whether this was the reason why the robes were introduced, but every query of "why judges wear robes" brings up detailed explanations on when the robes were introduced and which laws proscribe them. Nothing about the reason for it is mentioned.

So, why do judges wear robes?

I was reading the Annals of St Bertin, and there's a very short section that describes the fate of some commoners who banded together to fight marauding vikings in 859:

The Danes ravaged the places beyond the Scheldt. Some of the common people living between the Seine and the Loire formed a sworn association amongst themselves, and fought bravely against the Danes on the Seine. But because their association had been made without due consideration, they were easily slain by our more powerful people.

Dani loca ultra Scaldem populantur. Vulgus promiscuum inter Sequanam et Ligerim inter se conjurans adversus Danos in Sequana consistentes, fortiter resistit; sed quia incaute suscepta est eorum conjuratio, a potentioribus nostris facile interficiuntur.

I've seen some secondary sources dispute the meaning of this paragraph, so I'll ask: Does it really say what it looks like, that the Frankish government killed their own people after they had fought off the vikings? What does 'due consideration' mean in a 9th century Carolingian context? Was it merely permission from a local lord? The King? Why were they slain instead of disarmed? Were they rebelling? Most importantly, is anything else known about this incident? Any other primary sources relating it?

Were there any other incidents of commoners banding together to fight invaders without due consideration in Europe? What was the legality concerning commoners' ability to defend themselves during the Viking age in the Carolingian Empire? What was their reasoning for keeping commoners disarmed and unmobilised (if they were so), even when under invasion?

And what would the writer of the Annals have meant by 'commoner,' exactly? Free peasants? Serfs? Merchants? Anyone who wasn't a noble or a part of the clergy?

[deleted]

To my understanding Octavian was able to consolidate the same kind of dictatorial power as his predecessors but maintained the image of preserving the old system of competition among the upper class.

How exactly did he achieve this? How did the other nobles not see through this guise? He had all the powers just not technically by titles. Even if Octavian had Rome under the foot of his armies, that did not stop others from fighting so vigorously before.

I was told that the strongest power in the world before the American Revolution was the United Kingdom but I'm not buying it. I will define strongest in terms of militarily and economically.

I was eating a sub today and was just curious!

I don't know too much about what ailed Charles VI of France, Joanna of Castile, George III of Great Britain, or Henry VI of England, but they all seem to have been mentioned as suffering from madness. They may be others too. I remember one text cryptically referred to Henry VI as succumbing to the madness hereditary on his mother's side and then failing to elaborate, perhaps to create a notion his dad was a thoroughly solid chap. Was there great difficulty from misdiagnosis, with mental health in that period too poorly understood, or do we now have confirmation of their fragility and a better appreciation of what conditions (if any) really ailed these rulers.

pretty much every modern day move/video game/book in a medieval setting have bandits constantly harassing travelers and villages. Were bandits ever really that big of an issue in medieval Europe, if they even existed at all?

Looking at etymology, the term 'Loch', meaning lake, is derived from Scottish Gaelic, but the term Lake is derived from latin "Lacus". These terms seem to similar to be just coincidence, but how are they related?

I'm an assistant at a middle school, and the teacher was having students do stations to practice "Chinese calligraphy" that looked suspiciously like English letters that have been appropriated to look "Chinese." Odd and slightly offensive as that is, it got me thinking; is there any equivalent to the 26 letter English alphabet and the Chinese pictographic language? Or even Korean, Japanese, etc.?

It seems that Great Britain was very near defeat during World War II. If their colonies did not try to separate or leave the empire, why not?

Edit: sorry for the bad grammar.

A couple possible answers:

1. Military history occupies a very large place in history as an academic discipline and thus gets a lot of representation.

2. Demographically, reddit users and subscribers to this subreddit are disproportionately interested in military history compared to other aspects of history. I'm especially interested in why that might by the case.

I guess I'm thinking tactics because i have this image i have of machine guns being relatively fixed positions in ww1.