Examples of women who held government positions are: Mary I, Elizabeth I (whose reign was 44 years long), Queen Victoria (who had a 63 year long reign). All from England. Another example is Catherine the Great of Russia.

I read Timeline last year, and I really enjoyed it. One aspect I particularly enjoyed was the way that Crichton tried to dismantle common misconceptions about Medieval times.

Recently, I re-read Jurassic Park. My area is paleontology, and I noticed a lot of errors on Crichton's part (not "science marches on" errors, but misunderstandings of biology). So I began to wonder... how much of Timeline even accurate to begin with?

I have always wondered this since the invasion of Poland was basically a German-Soviet joint venture - and indeed the Soviet invasion had a large impact on the Polish campaign - despite popular depictions of Germany smashing Poland the Polish army could have probably held for a lot longer.

The only valid explanation I can come up with is that France and the UK could not afford to also declare war on the S.U. after having just gone to war on Germany. This however does not explain why the public conception has not changed in the many years since.

I'm no expert on languages, but it seems like it is vastly harder to decipher language isolates. For instance, even if you know what sounds the various signs make, you would then just have a long list of meaningless sounds. In fact, isn't that the current problem with deciphering Etruscan?

So when I was looking up information on how Sumerian was deciphered, every source just lumps it together with the deciphering of Akkadian. But logically even if you knew what sounds the different cuneiform symbols recorded, how would you know what the Sumerian inscriptions were trying to say?

[deleted]

I'm a layman, so whilst this isn't an ELI5 question, I don't have a whole lot of formal historical training - apologies if this is a really stupid question.

At school, we were taught the Celts invaded Britain, the Romans invaded and subjugated the Celts, the Saxons wiped the Celts out when the Romans withdrew, and the remantns of 'the Celts' withdrew to Brittany, Wales, and Scotland.

From doing further reading, what I've been taught seems to be almost completely incorrect. I think I have a better understanding of the modern view of the Anglo Saxon migration/cultural shift in Eastern England, but the Celts still baffle me.

I've tried reading about Halstatt and La Tene cultures and can't really make heads or tails of it. If someone put a gun to my head and said 'explain Celtic Britain', I would say that Iberian and Atlantic trade brought Celtic material culture and cultural practices to the extant British and Irish populations sometime before the Common Era, and this Celtic culture looked very different from region-to-region. I'm still really not sure if that's correct.

Is 'Celtic' just an arbitrary term coined by Victorian historians to group together a bunch of disparate polities? Was there a central ruler of some Celtic capital that held it all togheter? I guess the essence of my question is: who or what were 'the Celts', and is that even a useful term to use?

So, I know that Prussia unified the HRE and all, but why did they change the name to Germany?

Also another kinda related question, why didn't Austria reform the HRE? They were a great power for longer than Prussia, from what I know, so they could have done it, right?

I'm looking for films, not documentaries - thank you!

referring to the question above, would it also be safe enough for my ship to navigate through the waters in Albemarle sound and Pamlico sound down in N.C.?

[deleted]

Shout out to u/I_Am_Your_Daddy_ for posting the question in archaeology originally, but I'm very interested in this as well and there are no answers there!

I know ofter when cities were sacked, the cities were often burnt down/destroyed/damaged, the valuables taken, and the people taken into slavery/killed. But... how does this work when the invader wants to keep the city?

Eg, you probably can't kill/enslave all the people as otherwise you'll have an empty city - sure some of the army/camp followers could stick around, but most would have to move on with the army? Wikipedia says that about 30K of the 50K residents were killed/enslaved - so would the rest have just been left to get on with their lives under the new ruler?

I suspect most of the gold etc would have been looted, but how did land distribution work? Did the survivors get to keep their land/buildings? Or did Mehmed claim all the land and then give big chunks to his higher ranking followers to then distributed it further? Or was in more informal ?

Hi all,

I've been able to find quite a lot of secondary sources, such as Eric Dursteler, ed., A Companion to Venetian History, that cover general, but I'd really like to find sources that delve into how different types of Jews were treated. [Italian, Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews].

Any help would be massively appreciated.

Thanks.

Military history is fine, but it seems to me that institutions would play a big role in explaining things. After all, the Mongol leaders and their armies all rushing back home to fight over who gets to be the next Big Khahuna would probably have an impact on things.

Definitely do not want texts that boil down to "muskets did it!"

Thanks!

Hello!

I am currently reading Charles Burney's 1796 Monograph, Memoirs on the Life and Writings of the Abbate Metastasio. Metastasio being one of the great Italian poets of the 18th century and composer of numerous opera libretti.

Burney relates the virtuosic talents of the young Metastasio, describing his "power of making verses, extempore, on any given subject, before he was ten years old" (vol. 1, pg. 2).

This in and of itself is impressive, but not super interesting. What is more interesting is that Burney indicates that this was actually a widely practiced art, but one peculiar to Italy. For instance, in his footnote to this description, Burney writes, "This species of inspiration, allowed to the improvisatori of Italy, was long doubted in England by those who had never crossed the Alps, till the arrival of the celebrated Talassi in our country about ten years ago; when the most obstinate infidels were converted to the faith, and obliged to confess the reality of the art" (2-3).

Several references to this practice are alluded to, such as Mestastasio's mentor taking him to Naples "expressly to afford him an opportunity of singing extempore with the most celebrated Improvisatory of Italy at that time" (8). And later, in a letter to Algarotti, Metastasio says not that his skills in this regard were unique, but that it manifested in him "more early than usual" (9). In the same letter, Metastasio gives some inclination as to the aesthetic and competative atmosphere surrounding the practice, naming many of his competitors and hailing them as "veterans of the Pindaric battles" (9).

So clearly, this is a practice that is ongoing in Italy in the 18th century, with perhaps an epicenter in Naples. But Burney doesn't go into what the practice consisted of as much as I would like: What were its aesthetics and standards? What were the "Pindaric battles?" How long was this a popular practice for? Did other famous Italian poets get their start there (Zeno, Goldoni, Algarotti? Or perhaps poets from previous generations such as Tasso?) What were the general socio-economic makeup of these improvising poets? What sort of verses did they improvise, what were popular subjects and why? What mechanisms did they draw upon for their improvisations? etc.

There seems to be a whole artistic world here that Burney gives us only a peak into. I'd love to dive in!

This is why I've come to you guys. Does anyone here know of any sources that look at this practice closely?

I have been listening to Dan Carlin's "Hardcore History" podcast, he dedicates five episodes on the conquest of the Khans. Looking at the maps of the Khans conquest, one sees great expansion into China, much of greater Asia, and the Middle East. Except for India. Why?

During the Battle of Stalingrad Russian soldiers recaptured and defended a building in the city later called "Pavlov's House." The Russians allegedly found a gramophone and record in the building and played it loudly on repeat across the battlefield to intimidate the Germans and give moral support to the Russians. Stories suggest the Russians played other propaganda on speakers elsewhere during the battle, but there is legend of a single record played to death from Pavlov's House.

As a Jewish axe man (guitar of course) myself, I'd like to think I don't have to have flowing blonde locks to call myself one. But seriously, I'm interested in the history of the axe as a weapon.

Title says it all. Maybe not a book even, just a thorough explanation would suffice. It's Veterans Day and I am curious about this.

[deleted]