[deleted]

Could there have been benefits of exiling Socrates rather than killing him off from a decision of an angry mob?

Edit: I need to make argument of why Socrates should be tried and exiled and my 2 opponents are Radical Democrats who wish to put him on trial and execute him and followers of Socrates who don't want a trial at all. (I am a Moderate Democrat).

P.S. Wasn't sure if I should post this here or /r/HistoryWhatIf

I've read a lot about how the blitzkrieg was actually the brainchild of JFC Fuller, and how many panzers and the like that the Germans designed were technological dead ends that were inferior to cheaper and more realistic designs like the Sherman. The Germans weren't even the only ones making jet engines and high-tech stuff. But were there things which the Germans pioneered or invented that would become important after the war?

Textbooks, one-volume shallow narratives or multi-volume in-depth treatments. Any academic who likes a particular current one, or any student who was pleased with one they used in class.

A lot of good stuff has been posted on the Reading List, but for France it's pretty focused, and thin for the period between Joan of Arc and the Revolution- The Return of Martin Guerre is not enough.

Hope the question is clear! Europe or any other place would interest me.

I understand that the political culture back then was a lot different to what it is now and that it wasn't unusual for leaders of political parties to remain in their positions after election losses, but it does surprise me the Heath managed to remain as Leader after getting pretty hammered in the 1966 election.

It is my understanding that Heath was unpopular with many of his MPs due to his social ineptitude, his difficulty with women, his status as a bachelor, his inability to adapt to television, etc. I figured this would only increase the chances of him being ousted.

Aside from Minnesota, where the river begins and therefore can't really be a border, Louisiana is the only state that the river cuts through. Why is this?

I'm interested in alternate historical lenses to view world history from, and was wondering about any modern methodologies or research you have read/conduct with a "unique" view.

For example, most people are familiar with Marxist, Feminist, or structuralist narratives of history. But I've heard some historians discuss culinary/food histories as a lens or frame. I've seen specific products followed (alcohol, cod, salt, etc), primarily Nationalist frameworks, and climate narratives.

So, are there any new developments in historiography of new lenses to frame research or a historical narrative?

We all know that Christianity rising out if Israel in the 1st Century forever changed the Western World; but, before that, there was a lot of interaction between the two. Everything from the expeditions of Alexander to trade, Greek colonies and the Phoenicians were all interacting with the West. How much did their religions, cultural values, etc. have on theirs?

I recently read something about American spinsters in the 1800s who would "attach themselves" to other families as "aunts," and it got me wondering about the kind of lifestyles single women might have had, since I'd always assumed they were just stuck living alone or with their parents.

I know this is a broad question, but I'm interested in hearing about lifestyles of spinsters from any and all social strata (and open to hearing about the situation in other countries, too!).

It seems when facing massed Allied armor, their best hope was to bring field and artillery guns to the front or attempt to concentrate mortar fire or suicide bomber attacks in the later stages of the war.

Could they not have come up with something similar to a panzefaust at least?

I've seen the drill manuals for muskets, but did these new professional armies also drill raw recruits in sword use?

What kind of non-gunpowder training regimen would they have had other than pikes?

Hi all,

I have been watching the 1973 BBC series "The World at War", and in episode 18 (the occupation of Holland) there is mention of the restrictions placed on musicians when performing. Such as; trumpet players were...

• Not allowed to 'sway' while playing,
• Use mutes (devices to change the sound of the instrument)
• Play a note above a high C

I mention trumpet specifically as that was the instrument mentioned in the episode, I'm sure other instruments were equally restricted.

The interviewee mentions the wish from the Nazis to stay away from the 'negro' music of jazz, were there any other restrictions or reasons for these rules?

Thanks in advance any information you can provide, this is sincerely one of my favourite subs simply for the quality of information posted.

Josh

My original question didn't get answered, so here's another stab at a chance for an answer.

I was reading somewhere that those who had servants would often play little tricks or cruel setups on servants to "test" how dutiful they were. One specific example was this (and if possible, I'd like some verification on this):

The owner (is that the correct term? Maybe master/mistress would be better, right?) would leave a small coin or other trinket underneath the carpet, and then call the maid to clean the house. If the maid found and kept the small article, she would be punished for being disloyal - if she found it and left it there, or missed it, she would be punished for missing it.

Thanks in advance!

In Britain the Spanish Armada and its devastating defeat is routine history known by almost everyone and will often be mentioned in the media. What I didn't know until recently was a year later there was an English Armada which seems to have been just as devastating for the English in virtually identical circumstances. Why have I never heard about this before? Is it simply that Britain has collectively remembered its victory and forgotten its defeat or was this actually a less significant event? In the Spanish-speaking world is the English Armada remembered and the Spanish Armada forgotten?

The way I understand it, at the end of WWII the United States was the only country in the world with nuclear weapons, the Manhattan Project was one of their most top-secret projects, and the raw materials for nuclear weapons are extremely difficult and time consuming to produce. Was it a surprise when the US government found out Russia was nuclear capable?

The rest of the Empire was left intact, I think. Why couldn't the last Emperor rally the armies and population and retake the city from the foreign invaders?

Which nation had the most and made best use of self propelled artillery?

I have often heard this asserted, but never actually heard any reference to original sources. Is this a Christian urban myth?