Which computer was the first to produce a tone? (Not just mechanical sounds of the working computer).

Weird question but it is for a school project about the evolution of computer music. And I want to start with the really early computers.

In the new Netflix show "1899" the steamship Kerberos is travelling from London to New York City. During the voyage the Kerberos locates its sister ship, the Prometheus, which had been presumed lost.

The Captain of the Kerberos makes the decision to abort the voyage to NYC so that the Prometheus can be towed back to London. The passengers on the Kerberos are quite upset by this turn of events.

My question is this: How common was it for a steamship to abort a transatlantic voyage around the turn of the century? For what reason would a voyage be aborted? Are there any prominent examples where a voyage was aborted for the purpose of assisting and/or towing another vessel?

Did steamship companies typically have procedures in place to compensate passengers in the event of an aborted voyage?

Recently went down a Wikipedia rabbit hole and was shocked to discover just how prevalent these beliefs were amongst the lower ranks. The German naval mutinies in 1918, the Potemkin mutiny (as well as the fact that the Tsarist navy went over almost entirely to the Bolsheviks in 1917), and the Black Sea mutiny of French sailors in the Black Sea (1918) come to mind.

So I don't mean like Odin was literally a shape shifting god who could control ravens, but maybe he used to be an ancient pre-historic king whose story has been dramatized, embellished, & mixed with other pseudo historic sources over the millennia? In a way that we are generally in agreement many modern religions are. Is it possible that Ragnarok is really the story of the fall of a pre-historic kingdom & it's fall? That in a newly agrarian society the end of any Kingdom would have felt like the end of the world for those who lived within it.

And I ask this because, it just strikes as a totally plausible story when you pull out the super natural. Stuff that must have seemed super natural 5000 years ago would be considered totally banal today but would be described as the works of the gods in the first agrarian societies.

It seems like England punched way above its weight in terms of pitched battles for ~500 years, just reviewing:-1300-1400's: In the hundred years war, they seem to have won a large number of pitched battles and were only worn down by sieges and attrition by a larger opponent.-1500's: They thrashed french and scottish armies in incredibly decisive victories during the Italian Wars-1600's, they beat the netherlands in the Anglo-Dutch Wars (in total, not the second-one)-In the 1700's they beat the french in the War of Spanish Sucesssion and the 7 years war, again, despite the latter being larger.-And then in the Napoleonic wars they seem to have had a pretty strong record in the peninsular war and waterloo.

What's up with this? I know this is a long period, but it does broadly seem to be a trend, and I want to know why? is this english-language source bias and it isn't true? If it is true, why?

What would a typical Spanish nobleman have worn back in the medieval era as we typically think of it today? Im having trouble believing it was all Cavalier hats with massive plumas and shoulder capes with a giant family crest on it just because I know movies tend to go with flashy and exaggerated rather than historically accurate. I figured this would be a good place to start asking.

Reposting this question hoping I might get an answer this time:

​

Gutenberg changed printing around 1440. In the years afterwards, so between the mid 15th and the end of the 16th century, how common was it for people to own books?

When I say people, I'm less interested in great lords or kings and also not so much in the peasantry, though I'd be glad to hear about those too. But let's focus on more "middle class" people. What about small nobles and knights? What about a merchant or craftsman in a city? What about scholars? How many books might such a person have at their castle, their house etc.? What about the protagonists of the Reformation or humanists, how many books might someone like Melanchthon, Zwingli, Reuchlin, Erasmus or rather one of their less famous peers own?

In addition to the question of how many books they might earn, I'm also interested in what sort of books these might be. Bibles or at least New Testaments were probably common. Surely there were other religious works, like books of hours. But there must also have been secular literature. Don Quixote owns a whole private library full of chivalrous novels. Obviously he's depicted as being obsessed with such novels. But I'm wondering how realistic Cervantes' portrayel is and if it might in theory have been possible for a small hidalgo to own so many books.

1. Lorraine was a fief within the Holy Roman Empire, nominal as that was.
2. it was held personally by (the) Maria Theresa's husband Francis, the future Holy Roman Emperor.
3. It was exchanged for the leaderless Duchy of Tuscany (which was neither French nor HRoman!).
4. It was to be subsumed by the French Crown on Leszczyński'd death.
5. The French King didn't even like his Polish wife or her father!

I ask because I want to read the Bible (whatever that is) without getting unduly influenced by ancient political grievances and schisms, many of which were triggered by nerdy lore disputes that are clearly absurd. I just want to get as close as possible to the original, unmanipulated source texts.

If possible I would like to read those texts knowing in advance things like Luke not actually being written by Luke, but by someone pretending to be Luke.

If possible I would also like to avoid the translation "errors" such as "Thou Shall Not Murder" --> "Thou Shall Not Kill". That little mixup seems shocking and unforgivable to me, but as long as I'm not getting tricked by some theologian who lived hundreds of years ago I'm interested in reading this stuff.

From the "Deuterocanonical books", which are the books agreed upon by all parties except Protestants and Jews apparently, to the mysterious hold-my-wine-boys-I-got-this-new-and-improved ending to Mark, it seems like a minefield of clusterfucks to me.

Anyway, I would be keen to get some help reading the Bible. My background is in biology and we use meta-reviews to paper over this type of stuff and reach consensus, so that's what my question is about.

I am asking this here and not on a religious sub because I suspect theologians, especially the ancient ones, are not always following the rules of the road that secular academics know and love.

I've heard it said that the de facto uniforms for various sports (eg. Cricket, tennis, fencing) were white for a specific reason.

The reason, I'm told, was to make it harder for working class people to participate, as it was difficult for them to maintain a set of spare, clean, pure white clothes.

I've been trying to investigate this, as I am a member of a sports club with a white uniform and would like to establish the facts before the claim gets generally discussed, but I'm having trouble finding anything. Is there anyone here that could confirm or deny the story I have been told?

Welcome to Tuesday Trivia!

If you are:

• a long-time reader, lurker, or inquirer who has always felt too nervous to contribute an answer
• new to /r/AskHistorians and getting a feel for the community
• Looking for feedback on how well you answer
• polishing up a flair application
• one of our amazing flairs

this thread is for you ALL!

Come share the cool stuff you love about the past!

We do not allow posts based on personal or relatives' anecdotes. Brief and short answers are allowed but MUST be properly sourced to respectable literature. All other rules also apply—no bigotry, current events, and so forth.

For this round, let’s look at: Indigenous Nations! Dr. Larry Gross (White Earth Anishinaabe) uses the phrase 'postapocalyptic stress syndrome' to describe the lived experiences of many Indigenous people. He describes how many have 'seen the end of their respective worlds.' Concurrent to those experiences, Indigenous people have built, created, and defended nations. This week is dedicated to Indigenous Nations, in whatever form that may take.

I am guessing in old times it wasn't easy like today to confirm the real identity of people. So my question is had there ever been a case where someone looking like old king claimed he was him and took the throne or after a king died a dude lied and claimed he was his son and took the throne.

In all these countries, the Communist Party was the centre of armed resistance to the Germans and their fascist collaborators. As the Germans retreated, they toppled local collaborators and installed themselves as the civic authorities on the ground.

Across Western Europe, none of these Communist Parties were able to form government, unlike in Yugoslavia. Nor was there a civil war between the wartime Communist resistance, and the Allied powers’ preferred government, as happened in Greece.

So what happened to them? We’re they co-opted, or repressed, or just never that popular in the first place?

This is a ubiquitous line that I've seen attributed to Ulysses S. Grant, Duncan Campbell Scott, John A. MacDonald and several others in relation to Indian boarding schools and residential schools, but I've never seen evidence that they actually said it or that they saw this as their goal. Who originally said this and was it ever said as anything other than a criticism of the policy of forced assimilation?

If Göbekli Tepe predates the Agriculture Revolution, does that means agriculture was much older then thought, or even a rediscovery? Is 10,000 bce not the start of agriculture, but actually knowledge that was lost and rediscovery over again? That's how my tiny brain sees it

Hey, I’m somebody with a BA in European history, applying to MA programs in the UK focusing on the history of war. For this, and also just my own entertainment, what are the best books on the Napoleonic wars, preferably from the British angle, for a graduate level reader quite familiar with British history?

and did it stump their growth like it did to china?

Since all of our manuscripts of Aristotle, Herodotus, Plato, Tacitus, etc, come thousands of years later, how can we know what those documents originally said?