The Gregorian calendar, also called the Western calendar and the Christian calendar, is internationally the most widely used civil calendar.

It is named for Pope Gregory XIII, who introduced it in 1582.

But why did Pope Gregory XIII make October the 10th month on the Gregorian calendar when Octo/Octa translates from Greek into Eight?

It wasn't even the eighth month on Julius Caesar's Julian calendar that he introduced in 47 BC!

Why is this?

Well, I know there was no Riga in 800 AD but there was some kind of settlement in the vicinity. I'm just interested in the early medieval Baltic States.

Hi AskHistorians!

I was wondering if anyone knew where I could get a large map of Ancient Greece. I need it to be at least 5 foot by 5 foot. I need it because I am running a Peloponnesian War Model UN crisis, and I need a map to display the progression of the war over our three day conference.

In addition, if anyone has any crisis updates (that is, new problems to throw delegates) that would have happened during that time (civil, military, anything) that would be perfect!

I was just thinking about Scottish tartans and how each one resembles a clan, and that got me to thinking about the Victorian aristocracy and how family was very important to them, but was there a piece of jewellery or something that would display which family you belonged to? How did they keep track of who was who without the aid of Wikipedia?

I'm really most interested in the last part of my question. Did any of the books they presumably read on the subject have major biases that today are contradicted what we think about the civil war? I assume the english civil war had passionate defenders and critics of each sides actions during it? What schools of thoughts on the subject were most common among the well read americans? Did this differ than what those in England thought of the civil war?

Was there as mathmatical reasonuing behind it (e.g. at 3/5's, number of northern and southern delegates were equal) or was it arbitrary? Is there a non-mathematical reason?

As I understand it, in the interwar period, Czechoslovakia was unique in Central Europe in retaining democratic institutions between its creation and Hitler's invasion. And on first glance it seems to have had most of the usual factors that are seen as important in the rise of fascism and weaker authoritarianisms - political borders that didn't cohere with ethnic ones, a strong Left, the political inheritance of Habsburg rule, and so on - but it didn't go down that path. Why?

I always hear about how Napoleon was a great general, but I've never heard any specifics about what exactly made him so great. Could someone perhaps give examples or analysis of his tactical know-how.

This may seem a little ignorant but I have always found it hard to keep track of who was who and for a while even thought they were the same people, so if anyone can a) help give me an idea of who these different people were and b) why they are similar enough that they almost seem interchangeable, I would greatly appreciate it.

Also bonus question, which ones were thought to have evolved from the Sea People, and why did the other one survive them?

If this isn't the right subreddit please inform be a better place to ask please.

For whatever reason, I just can't imagine people in the 60's saying "I'm gonna go for a jog" or etc. Anytime before that (or really after that until like the early 2000's), either. When did running become something people did so nonchalantly? I imagine in the 50's it would be weird to just go running around your neighborhood. Did people even do cardio before like, the 80's?

In the 1600-1900 time period.

With the island siege battles on crete, malta and rhodes i can understand cannon balls disease sorties and logistical supply problems.

However even in the land battles they suffer greatly against their european counterparts often losing out to forces much smaller than themselves. Even in victory they tend to lose more soldiers than the other side and in defeat their casualties reach absurd numbers for any battle.

What was it that caused this. Were the europeans simply better equipped and motivated. Do most of the casualties come from the irregular peasants that made up the bulk of the army? Because i thought that the majority of the forces compromised jannisaries, sipahis and irreuglar light cavalry.

I recently saw a play version of Sense and Sensibility, and a small thing that happened reiterated one of the points I found odd in other historical dramas: there was a lot of emphasis on being introduced to people before being able to speak with them.

As a specific example, in (this play version of) Pride and Prejudice, Collins, a rector, approaches Darcy, an aristocrat, and others in the scene exclaim "But you haven't been introduced!". In another example, in the fictional series Temeraire by Naomi Novik, set during the Napoleonic wars, the main character finds himself lost in the English countryside, and knows that one of the men under his command is from the area, but finds it unseemly to call on his family's house since they have not ever been introduced, even though he is pretty cold and starving.

What were the rules of being introduced? How rude was it when people approached others without being introduced first? (in modern terms, on a scale of 'not saying bless you when they sneeze' to 'peeing in their face'?)

I've been watching The Tudors lately, and have been really moved by the deeply sympathetic portrayal of Mary Tudor.

I was just wondering what some other people think of her. She obviously did some terrible things, but was she the monster some people make her out to be, or is she misunderstood?

Thanks.

Also, when did it become normal?

Thanks in advance

To expand I'm also wondering about other minority groups such as the Kurds, Druze, and Alewites.

This may be way out of the scope of this sub, but why are the only non-European nations that are considered a part of Western civilization the former British colonies? Latin America shares with "Western nations" a great deal of history, religion, and often politics and race (Argentina in particular is largely made up of people with European heritage). These days they're largely democratic and increasingly wealthy (with Chile a member of the OECD).

• Is there are a reason they're largely excluded?
• Was it because they weren't "white" enough, and Argentina just got lumped in with the others?
• Was it because of their undemocratic politics in former times?
• Were they too poor? Again going back to Argentina, it was once the 7th wealthiest country in the world, so why was it excluded?
• Do many Latin Americans consider themselves Western, and the rest of the world forgets about them?