Though I'm fairly ignorant on the topic itself, it seems like time is an essential element of our daily lives, and as necessary to our modern lives as money, electricity, and coffee. Perhaps more so, some might argue.

At what point in history did we become obsessed with it, and has it changed much in the last few centuries? Additionally, have there been any efforts to change how we keep or view time (aside from Daylight Savings Time, etc.)? Or does it fall into the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" caveat?

[deleted]

This is my second Ricardian post in as many days - sorry, it's becoming a minor obsession!

A common refrain in defence of Richard III is that the unflattering accounts of his reign - his tyranny, bloodlust, child-killing etc - stem from a Tudor bias, specifically the double-barrelled hate-machine that is William Shakespeare and Thomas More, both men with a good reason to underscore a "Bad Richard/Good Henry" narrative.

But is this accurate? What other critical sources do historians draw upon in order to present Ricky 3 as a less than ideal monarch?

I've looked into this myself before posting, but can't find any information on it. It just strikes me that if a modern darling of the music industry were to perform in front of a crowd of violent convicts there'd be a backlash against them. I've always wondered whether Cash faced criticism for doing so.

See, I'm confused because I read that the term and concept of "feudalism" is fabricated and false so I've lost my entire basis for the time period really. I need to get rid of the misconceptions about Medieval society and to get an accurate, if general knowledge of life in the middle ages, economically, military, socially, the whole deal.

So where should I start researching? I'm a student so I can't really throw money around at more expensive books. If it's any help I really just need to know about Western Europe.

Edit: Specifically the High Middle Ages

Leading up to WW1, France had a formidable defensive line along its border with Germany but surely someone high up in the French military could surmise that Germany would try to go through Belgium in event of a war. Happened again with the construction of the Maginot line in the lead up to WW2. Relations with Belgium aside, seems like they didn't make a full hearted effort in the defense against Germany.

I'm currently reading the book "Alone" which is part of Winston Churchill's series on World War II. At one point Winston mentions that spotters looking for - and giving warning of - German air raids were eventually known as "Jim Crows. How did this come about? Was this a common nickname?

Okay, so I'm not sure if this is the right sub, but I'm really interested to learn more about the causes and motives behind WWI. I was wondering if you guys could point me in the direction of some books or articles where I could read about this. Or, if you could point me in the direction of the right subreddit I would appreciate that. Thanks guys !

I'm currently watching a bbc documentary called Tankies: Tank Heroes of World War II. In it there's a short clip of Rommel going over plans in the desert and he appears to have a black eye and cut lip!

Has there ever been a reason given for it?

I've discovered that it's a civilization I don't know a lot about and would like some suggestions for a good general, easy to find lecture about the Ottomans.

Thanks a lot

One of my professors mentioned something about MLK getting caught for plagiarism in regards to his doctoral thesis. Is there any real evidence of this?

Since I was a kid I read about how Roman legionnaires, after finishing their tour of duty, would get some money and a piece of land to settle down on, as a reward. Lately it occurred to me that I never really thought about if that was actually a good deal; just checked if off as "oh, that's nice, guess they'll become farmers then." back then, naively picturing vast rows of neat rectangular plots covering the land.

So my question(s) is/are: Was the piece of land a legionnaire got actually enough to sustain him? Sustain a whole family? (by sustain I mean feed the people and provide enough excess products/materials to be traded for other necessities).

Expanding upon that two other questions:

1.) What did Legionnaires actually do with their land? Really just go their, build a house, start becoming a farmer? It must be more complicated, especially for people that have been professional solders half their life.

2.) How did those lots of land for legionnaires fit into the larger economic picture? Were they mostly isolated, sustaining their owners. Or did they play a larger role, maybe as provider for the military? Did they organize themselves, etc.?

Edit: I am aware of the broad socio-political reasons why Rome would want to settle their veterans in newly conquered lands; by all means feel free to explicate those aspects. The main focus of my question however are the micro- and macro-economic aspects of this topic.

I am aware of the fact Japan essentially modernized because of the Meiji restoration, however I am confused as to why the Japanese people were so accepting of this new way of life. I don't get why there weren't any hiccups so to say.

Also China had the opportunity to undergo the same process because during the late 19th century they had their own strengthening movement. The Qing dynasty elite recognized that they had to adopt western technology to better defend themselves, which they did. They built ships and even sent some Chinese students to study in the US. So why did their modernization efforts end there?

I apologize if this post does not abide by this subreddit's rules, I did my best. Also apologies if any of the above information is incorrect please feel free to correct me, thanks!

There's a lot of chatter about programming becoming the third literacy. While there's a large movement to make coding much more popular, there's also a reactionary movement that contends that the average person is not capable of that kind of reasoning and ultimately the effort is futile.

Were reading and math education seen with similar pessimism in the 19th century in this United States? If so, was it common, and how did this attitude change?

EDIT: Someone noticed that I did not mention which country I am referring to.