We know most native americans descend from people who moved from Asia into North America (and, it seems, at least some of them had west eurasian origins as well, and they all moved in either one, two or three migrations), and that place is really cold, so I suppose the first americans used clothes in some way similar to the typical clothes you see inuits wearing in historical pictures. When you go further south, however, you can see some tribes wearing less and less clothes, and in parts of South America no clothes at all.
Do we know when, in the process of going from current Alaska to the rest of the continent, the first tribes started using no clothes, and why?
1 Answers 2015-11-26
I know that the Namibian War for Independence refers to the conflict between the South African Defence Force and SWAPO, and that the Angolan Civil War refers to the conflict between UNITA, FNLA, and the SADF on one side and the MPLA and Cuba on the other, but where does the Border War fit into all of this?
1 Answers 2015-11-26
The word guledic, I see it pop up frequently as either an epithet or title of Briton lords during the dark ages, yet I still haven't figured out what it means. To the best of my knowledge Ri means King, Tiern is Prince, but the definition of guledic escapes me, the best translation I've seen saying "chief" but that was a very specific example it was referring to.
1 Answers 2015-11-26
It seems like Wahhabism is the only one that pops up over and over again in discussion of radical jihadism. Is this the theological base for it or are there multiple sources?
1 Answers 2015-11-26
After the Nazis invaded Denmark and Norway both in an unprovoked attack, why did Belgium, the Netherlands, and later the Soviet Union keep believing that the Germans would have any shred of respect for their neutrality in the conflict?
Especially baffling to me is Belgium, who had already been invaded in the first World War. Also baffling is the USSR, who could see that the Nazis did not care about the neutrality of Denmark, Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and probably some other ones I'm missing. All these countries tried not to "provoke" the Nazis by not seriously building up their armies in preparation for an invasion.
3 Answers 2015-11-26
What are some good historiographical resources on recent interpretations of Volksgemeinschaft?
1 Answers 2015-11-26
I'm asking because you'd think such a dominant power in Europe for almost a millennium would have plenty but I'm having a hard time finding them. The Third Crusade was an embarrassing failure. Most battles between The Teutonic Knights against the Poles and Lithuanians seem to be defeats, and the empire was beaten several times in the Hussite Wars. Yet somehow Germany still occupies Poland and Bohemia for awhile? The Thirty Year War had no clear winner but Germany suffered by far the most from it, and of course the Napoleonic Wars were filled with humiliating defeats until the end. Did the HRE have any great victories?
1 Answers 2015-11-26
I searched this sub looking for answers but I couldn't find anything satisfying from an actual historian. I've seen a few things from people that I perceived to be well informed, particularly this one from /u/mormengil, but it all comes off as incomplete and one sided. Honestly I'm surprised there aren't more questions about this in this sub.
1 Answers 2015-11-26
In reading about the Civil War and about Scotch-Irish history, I have encountered the "Celtic South" theory a few times. If you're not familiar with it, the idea is that Southerners were largely descended from Celtic people, Northerners from Anglo-Saxons from southern England. It connects Southern culture to Celtic roots and portrays the war as a clash of these different age-old cultures.
I believe it originated with Grady McWhiney and his book "Cracker Culture":
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/30/us/30mcwhiney.html?_r=0
Other people have written about it too, though -- Jim Webb leaned pretty heavily on the idea in "Born Fighting."
I was wondering what you here and historians in general think of it, if you give it any credence or if it's just a bunch of malarkey. We all know large numbers of Scotch-Irish people settled in the South and had an influence on the culture. But the idea that they were the predominant influence, and that they were so vastly and irreconcilably different from their fellow English-speaking Protestants in the northern states that this cultural difference was a main cause of the war, strikes me as highly suspect.
For starters, you could probably debate forever just how "Celtic" Lowland Scots and their descendants in Ulster and America are. Many Scotch-Irish writers of the 19th century went out of their way to argue that their ancestors were Anglo-Saxons, just like the English. Just one of many such examples of this I could cite is on page 187 of this work:
As late as the 1960s, opponents of integration leaned on their Anglo-Saxonness in their rhetoric -- George Wallace and his "Anglo-Saxon Southland" is one famous example, but there are others.
Much of this was doubtless an attempt to fit in in an era where Anglo-Saxons were viewed as superior. Modern genetic research has shown that English people have plenty of Celtic ancestors anyway. Distant genetics aside, though, most of the Scots who settled in Ulster and later came to America were English-speakers (or Scots if you consider it a separate language), and had been for generations. To portray them as completely different from the English seems about as extreme, and wrong, as the opposite argument that they were just like the English.
Plus, the coastal South was settled mostly by the English, as I learned it. And there were plenty of Scottish and Scotch-Irish people who settled in the North -- not as many as in the Appalachians, true, but they were a substantial influence in some areas. (I'm leaving out the Catholic Irish for the purposes of this because they were too new in this country at the time of the war to have had much influence on its causes.) Plus, advocates of this theory count as "Celtic" many people who have been speaking English for hundreds of years before coming to America. I doubt your average northern Englishman in 1700 would have regarded himself as having much in common with a Gaelic-speaking Scottish Highlander just because he might have had some Cumbric-speaking ancestors in the 11th century.
The whole theory strikes me as an attempt to justify the Southern side of the war by painting it as a romantic fight by Scottish and Irish folks fighting the same battles against those oppressive Yankees that their forefathers fought against the English. Sounds a lot nicer than saying we were fighting to preserve the right to own slaves, doesn't it? But I would be interested to hear what other knowledgable people such as yourselves think of it.
2 Answers 2015-11-26
1 Answers 2015-11-26
Well, Happy Thanksgiving in the meantime everyone!
Unanswered still :/ oh well. Thanks for trying I guess.
1 Answers 2015-11-26
[deleted]
1 Answers 2015-11-26
1 Answers 2015-11-26
As we all know, during WW2 the Soviets were allied with the United States, but after the end of WW2, was there any particular incident that broke apart the West's and Soviet's relationship and made them enemies, or was their "friendship", just a temporary thing until the bigger threat was taken care of?
2 Answers 2015-11-26
4 Answers 2015-11-26
I'm looking mostly at the Arctic convoys shipping raw materials and machinery to Russia, but I guess the question also applies to the Persian Corridor. While there are detailed records about what was shipped to Russia, there's no info on anything or anyone ever being taken back. So would the ships make the return journey empty, or were these ever used to evacuate people, or bring back cargo to, say, the UK?
1 Answers 2015-11-26
Hey /r/AskHistorians
I really hope making a post like this is okay (since I don't really have a specific question). I'm a writer and currently working on a project that is set in London during WWII. While I have most of my story planned out, I want to do some proper research to make sure it's as historically accurate as possible
My project (which will most likely be a play) is about a group of people who are taking shelter in the Underground during the Blitz. While I have most of the story planned out, I really think it's time I do further research to make sure I get all the details and references right. I have a basic knowledge of what happened in London, but I would love to know more. Especially about the day to day lives of those who lived there. I'd also like to learn about how some of the minorities would have been treated.
Thank you so much in advance!
1 Answers 2015-11-26
I searched the sub for urinating, peeing and fountains and couldn't find anything related to fountains that have peeing statues.
1 Answers 2015-11-26
Military history is definitely not my thing!
Working through different combat logs and accounts from the 1840s and while I know the difference between a matelot (sailor) from a grenadier, tirailleur, or voltigeur; I am not sure exactly what differentiates that last group? In this case all four are serving together.
Obviously the difference is important enough for the sources to usually be clear about what type of soldier/unit to which they refer (though not all the time).
Was the training different? Command structure? Responsibilities? Armaments?
Thanks in advance for any and all input.
*edited to add voltigeur to the list; forgot it the first time!
2 Answers 2015-11-26
Also, would they put people from the same place in the same unit, like the Biritsh did during the first part of WWI?
2 Answers 2015-11-25
This morning I saw a question about the Jihad declared during World War I. I originally piggybacked on that question but figured I'd ask my own to try and get an answer.
We've all seen the methodology of modern Jihad; it relies on small militia style units, blending into urban surroundings, bombs, and strikes against soft targets. How was jihad carried out during World War I? What kind of tactics did Jihadis use and did they have any notable successes? Were there any attacks on Allied soil because of the call?
1 Answers 2015-11-25
Hello, I am not sure if this is against the rules of this sub reddit (sorry if it is. I couldn’t find anything about this type of question in the rules). I am looking for good books to read on the American Revolution and formation of the US Constitution for my brother's Christmas gifts.
I really want a few books that are good to read together that provide different perspectives on the subject. I am thankful for all replies.
2 Answers 2015-11-25
My deceased grandfather was an army veteran of the Korean War. Growing up, he told me, my cousins, and even his children, that when in Korea, all he did was peel potatoes. Although possible (maybe), my family believes that he only told us this so he didn't have to tell us what really happened. I'm interested in finding out his actual involvement in the army (even if it was just peeling potatoes) and I did not ever think to ask my grandmother who also recently passed away. Are there any resources where I could find this information? I'm not entirely sure this is the proper place and apologize if it's not but I'm very interested to find out?
1 Answers 2015-11-25