I read Brigitte Hamann's The Reluctant Empress (Kaiserin wider Willen), the landmark biography of Empress Elisabeth of Austria-Hungary, which overturned the fairytale image of Elisabeth that the Austrian and German tourism industries like to sell. Hamann concluded that Elisabeth was a disturbed, miserable woman, who refused to do what was expected of her, how it was expected of her.

I have questions arising from one point in Hamann's book:

• Elisabeth refused to behave as her position demanded of her, yet fulfilled at least part of her duties as sovereign, however unconventionally by bringing about the Ausgleich and therefore a more liberal political climate in Austria-Hungary

As The Reluctant Empress is first and foremost a biography of Sissi, and not a political history of Austria-Hungary, I'd like to know what AskHistorians thinks to what extent are the following claims made by Hamann true?:

• That part about Elisabeth having had a large role in persuading Franz Josef to accord Hungary equal status to Austria in the k.u.k. I know empresses weren't supposed to be politically active, and the Hungarians themselves pushed for the status. But was Sissi's role in the Ausgleich actually significant?
• That it was more reasonable for Bohemia, rather than Hungary, to be accorded equal status, because Bohemia was more populous, had a powerful aristocracy, and displayed fewer separatist sentiments/signs

Also - were there (aside from Maria Theresa) other politically active Hapsburg women, and what did they do?

I recall that there is an illustrated Polish Bible (the Wa-something manuscript; I'm afraid I can't recall the exact name) from the thirteenth century (I think?) where the Old Testament figures look exactly like medieval knights. I'm told that a fair amount of what we know about medieval knights--their kit and whatnot--comes from that. I would presume that the artists had no choice but to go with what they knew, and that in fact they had no idea that they didn't know what they didn't know.

Renaissance painters doing biblical scenes would at least put bearded white guys in Oriental robes, so I guess by then they sort of realized that the ancient Hebrews didn't quite look like typical 15th century Florentines?

Did it take the advent of modern archaeology for Europeans to realize that Aristotle and the Apostle Paul weren't rocking the doublet and neck ruff?

I have read some on the subject but haven't been able to find much on public opinion and perception of compulsory education in America. I'm interested particularly in how people either embraced or opposed the compulsory nature of state-run education, particularly as it was expanded beyond elementary/grammar school.
I'm curious because I think this issue and Americas history with it could provide some context on the Bernie Sanders plan to expand federal funding and control of college level education.

I know that the Manhattan Project was kept very well under wraps and that very few people actually knew what it was. My question, though, is what did the world know about the pursuit of atomic bombs before the US dropped them on Japan?

Did most countries know the US was working on it? Did they know someone was working on something but not really sure what? Or was it a complete and total shock when the bomb dropped that nobody had any idea what had just happened? Or was it something in between?

I'm wondering what was going into the thought process of attacking the US. Was it completely to conquer? Were there any US policies or actions that might have made it feel to the Japanese that attacking was necessary?

I don't mean as a part of a whole, let's say in converting Native Americans, unless they had a widespread plan to do so. Because I seem to have read that many types of people came to America from all over Europe with many differing beliefs, or even no beliefs. So instead, I'm wondering if Protestant Christians committed large scale, organized violence in the name of God or Jesus Christ?

Thank you in advance for any help or insights you may have. And although I read both the FAQ and the rules, if I am in error, please forgive me as this is my very first question here.

I think it was Napoleon that would have a war plan explained to a regular person in the camp, and if that person understood the plan would have to explain it back. The idea was that if a regular person in the camp understood the plan and could explain it then it could be easily understood by all.

Is this true? If not Napoleon was it another famous person in history... or am I making this up?

Thanks!

So an old classmate responded to an article that considers the La Raza notions of taking back western America as outdated, and likens the Aztecs to be like the Roman Empire (a negative comparison mind). A rebuttal was written that said that the Aztec were expansionist like the Romans, but they were overall a peaceful society that linked together cities in trade networks and unifying millions of different ethnic backgrounds (thus people should be proud of the Aztecs and not think of them only as crazy sacrificing people, which the article seems to feel is exaggerated by the Spaniards). Is the description of the Aztecs as a relatively peaceful society accurate? Was the region beforehand just a war-ridden area that experienced calm with Aztec rule?

[deleted]

It seems like most artists are known by their full or last names. Why does Michelangelo get a monopoly on the name "Michelangelo"?

I know war is horrible and many people die, but my question is, often through history in warfare, you have both sides deploy extraordinary large forces, but there is very little contact between those two bodies and the causality size is pretty small compared to the overall size of each side, you also have many incidents of the much larger forces doing a full scale retreat when they've lost less than 5%. Is it just good strategy? Or is the "fight to the death" mentality not really true. I apologize for my lack of 'military terms'

If you compare the early sixties with the late sixties, it is very clear that a radical change in culture occurred in an unbelievably short span of time. For all intents and purposes, 1962 was still indisputably a part of the "fifties", whereas everything after the Kennedy assassination changed America to the point that it was unrecognizable.

The Hit Parade went from Doo Wop hits, Elvis, Dion and the Belmonts, etc., to British Invasion bands like the Beatles and the Stones with a "grungier" or "psychedelic" sound.

Environmentalism came into being with such works as Silent Spring and The Population Bomb.

State-sanctioned race discrimination, despite no longer being in vogue by the late 1940s, was eliminated in this period through such legislation as the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the 1965 Voting Rights Act, the 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act, etc. And by the end of this period, I would argue that overt racism in private interactions would have made one much more of a social pariah than in 1962, especially outside the South.

Feminism, which had long lain dormant after the attainment of suffrage, sprang back into being and was beginning to really shape public opinion by the 1970s.

The escalation of American involvement in Vietnam caused a deep cynicism and questioning of patriotism that arguably still shapes the nation's psyche today.

Basically, what happened? Are there other examples in history of the culture and every institution of a country changing in so short a time? Am I missing signs that radical change was already occurring in the background well before the 1960s? Why were the 1960s a time of such great change?

I'm aware of some large conflicts that took place in Central and South America involving the Aztec, Maya, Inca, etc. However, I'm curious if anyone has any knowledge about what is considered to have been the largest single battle in North American history in terms of the number of Native Americans involved. Even if this took place during the French Indian War, or involved European/American militaries in some way. I'm just curious whether a single instance has been historically recognized as involving the largest number of tribal warriors ever assembled and engaged in combat in North American history.

The dual-wielding rogue is a common trope in fantasy games like D&D and Dragon Age, but was it ever considered a viable combat style on a larger scale? To clarify, I'm not talking about a sword and shield, but rather carrying a weapon in either hand and using both of them for offense and defense. I suspect that the complexity of learning to fight with both your dominant and non-dominant hand would make learning this skill quite difficult, and thus would be rare in military combat. So, what's the deal?

[deleted]

Would they move to the next in line anyway, or would they give the heir special arrangements? Were they barred from inheritance as soon as the disability was discovered or caused? And were some disabilities better or worse received than others? I specifically mean physical disabilities, not mental ones.

Sorry if it's worded poorly.

Hello! This is my first question ever posed to reddit, so I apologize if I do not do this correctly (is there an incorrect way to ask a question?)

The reason that I am asking this question is because I am a Maltese woman (half Maltese, half British to be exact), and have just recently been told by my mother that I am an Arab. For my entire life I have always considered myself to be Maltese, and I did not know that Malta was also considered to be an Arab country. I have been trying to do some research on this topic but I have been getting mixed answers. The top three answers usually go like:

1] Maltese people are not Arab's because they were colonized by the Arab's a long time ago. Many of them look white (even though it is possible to have white Arabs, no?), and they are so close to Italy that they should be considered European.

2] Maltese people are Arab's. They are mixed with a lot of things, but Arab if definitely one of them and that cannot be discounted. Just because they are now considered a European country by the EU does not mean that they are not Arab's.

3] some Maltese people are Arab's, some aren't. There is no way of knowing because it is such a diverse country with a diverse background.

I know that Malta was at one time colonized by the Arabs, I know that our language is, at least in part, derived from Arabic, and I know that my Maltese relatives are all dark, with curly hair and "Arab" looking features. But in my eyes, I am still confused. Because of my British heritage I am fair, with vaguely Arab features and thick, light hair. I do not know if the history of my Maltese heritage warrants me to say that I am Arab.

To you this might be a simple question, but I feel as though an important part of my identity is on the line! I am proud of being Maltese, and I want to know if that means that I am, by extension, an Arab.

What do the historians think?

In 'Islam and the West' (1993), Bernard Lewis describes how:

"It is not uncommon in history for an economy to be stimulated by the commercial impact of another, more active and technologically more advanced society. What is special in the European impact on the lands of Islam, especially in the Middle East, is that on both sides the agents and beneficiaries of the resulting economic change were aliens. The outsiders were of course Europeans, but even in the Middle East the principal actors were either foreigners or members of religious minorities, seen and treated by the dominant majority society as marginal to itself." (Lewis 1993:24)

And:

"In 1912, forty private bankers were listed in Istanbul. Not one of them was a Turkish Muslim. Those who can be identified by their names included twelve Greeks, twelve Armenians, eight Jews, and five Levantines or Europeans. A list of thirty four stockbrokers in Istanbul included eighteen Greeks, six Jews, five Armenians, and not a single Turk." (Lewis 1993:24-25)

Why did things develop this way? The only thing I can think of is that these Christian minorities had more contact with the modernising West than the Muslim population, and also that they were allowed to use the printing press when Muslims were not. Were Christian minorities dominant economically before the period of European modernisation?

I'm from Somalia and Arabs are called Dhega Cas ( Red Ears). They're called Xonq Xe in Senegal and Even Madagascar uses it. Is there some common thread linking them?