My friend told me that Austrians are Germans but don’t consider themselves to be Germans anymore because of WW2 and the Holocaust. But, he said the reason why the Germans didn’t find it strange that Adolf Hitler was Austrian was because at that time Austrians were considered to be a type of Germans like Bavarians. What’s the truth?

Since cattle produce way less calories per unit of land as opposed to grain or whatnot.

I've recently become interested in that whole period of time, and the region as well, and was curious. Despite being so close, I can't find anything about interactions (good or bad) between the two groups.

I know that there were wars in Finland, but they all seem to be later in time or mythological. (It doesn't help that "Finn" was historically used for both Sámi and Finnish people, which confuses things.) The earliest account I can find via my googling is the Battle at Hersdalr in 1008, and vague references to earlier potential campaigns.

If anybody knows about happenings in Finland proper before 1000 I would be insanely thankful. I'm really curious why, despite how close they are to each other, there's seems to be very little happening between Finland proper and Sweden, whether it be trading or warfare and I would really love to know more!

P.S. Adding this on late. Found a Wikipedia page dedicated to "Early Finnish wars" but it's kinda. Rough. The sources are either blocked by paywalls or in a language I don't understand lol. It answers a bit but I would like to know the opinions of historians!

Thank you all very much!!!

The teacher, at an all boys Catholic military school, insisted that the challenges the Puritans faced in Britain were largely of their own making. She said there was little in the way of societal pressure or persecution for the Puritans in Britain. Instead what they faced was a country which simply didn't care for their way of life and resumed a secular life. This persecution complex eventually led to the Puritans seeking to found Plymouth and spread from there where they could finally be in power again and be free to fully persecute anyone who refuses to adhere to their lifestyle. My question I suppose is two-part, how accurate was my teacher's portrayal of the broad generalizations that led post-Restoration Puritans to flee to the New World? The second part has this perceived persecution, or persecution complex, traveled from those early Puritan settlers through all the great eras of American history?

So i'll be blunt, i have never went to college and my mom pulled me out of school fairly early in my life for Homeschooling which didn't work out at all, However I've always had a love for History and I want to know how i can develop said passion and what the necessary skills are to be able to succeed in it.

(I don't really know where else to ask tbh)

Title IX requires schools to offer equal access to sports for both boys and girls. When it comes to baseball, schools often implement this by setting up a softball team for girls. Why is that? No other sport works like this.

This was in Kansas, back in the late 90s or early 00s.

edit: "or has it been around for many years?" should probably have been "or is/was it widespread?"

I don’t know if it’s a modern idea or European idea of having privacy when having relations but the idea of living in large family units trying to be intimate with a partner sounds rather uncomfortable to me and I’m just trying to gain an understanding as how romantic/sexual relationships would work in those settings.

I’m not going to ask anyone to compare polio to what we are facing today as it’s against the rules. However, what convinced so many parents to vaccinate their children against polio? Were there difficulties in convincing parents to vaccinate their children?

In a recent documentary show about Pompeii, there was some discussion about the supposed date of the eruption. The Italian team discovered some proof during the show, that showed the traditional August date may be incorrect. What piqued my interest is the very quick explanation about date writing in roman times. Apparently Pliny the younger, in his account of the eruption, noted the date in such a format that it could have meant 24 August, 30 October, or 2 other dates?

My main question is, what exactly does this look like? How are dates written that could be so hard to interpret? Or is this more of an issue of the source material degrading to such a state that it may be unreadable? Thanks!

I am watching a documentary on the last czar and how his son had hemophilia. I get why he'd do anything to keep his son safe but I don't understand why they need a male heir. By thus point the royal families of Europe were massive so it should be a fairly simple matter to find a male cousin or brother that would keep the family line going. Why did so many people in the courts of Europe obsess about every single monarch having a son?

I believe the time period I'm asking about is from around 800-900.

I've been reading the Saxon Stories by Bernard Cornwell(Now on netflix as "The Last Kingdom") and I've also seen Vikings. I understand these are fictional accounts but there seems to be enough evidence that Vikings/Danes raiding churches for their large amount of wealth did occur.

So why were these churches hoarding so much treasure? Did having items like gem encrusted gold crosses and silver/cold candelabras represent something more significant than flaunting their wealth?

Also, both of these shows/books have a common theme of the church being utterly corrupt and greedy. Is there any evidence of this on a large scale?

My understanding is that reactions to both regicides were (broadly) of shock/horror for much of European society- other than a minority of a more radical persuasion. However, the reaction to the French Revolution and the execution of Louis XVI seems to be rather more heavy-handed and outright condemnatory than to the English Civil War and the execution of Charles I. Indeed, many European powers declared war against the new French Republic over the radical outcome, yet there were no similar actions against the nations of Britain.

Firstly, is this view broadly accurate? If so, why was this the case?

Longtime genealogy buff. It occurred to me that I have almost never spotted an ad for a house needing a servant. I recall seeing many newspaper notices concerning runaway "indentures" in the 18th and early 19th century, but never seeing advertisements for a family needing house staff, in any century.

Why was this, and how did homeowners go about finding hired help without newspaper ads/notices?

Abraham's wife Sarah gave her female slave Hagar to Abraham to have sex with in order to beget an heir (Genesis 16:1-4). Both of Jacob's wives, Rachel and Leah, gave their respective female slaves to Jacob to have sex with in order to beget heirs (Genesis 30:1-13). Judah once picked up a woman he presumed to be a prostitute, and then begat two of his sons through this fornication (Genesis 38:11-30). Samson once had sex with a prostitute, and then immediately afterwards defeated his enemies through the power of God (Judges 16:1-3). The Bible doesn't seem to have a big problem with premarital sex as a general rule.

Nor does the Bible, as a rule, require people to remain a virgin until marriage. Young women at the time were generally expected to be virgins before marriage, but this appears to only be customary within the context of a culture which practiced arranged marriages. In this system, virgin brides were highly prized by potential grooms and fetched a premium bride-price for the woman's family. The biblical inclination towards virgin brides appears to have only social and economic significance, yet it would seem that Christians have reappropriated the concept for a different purpose. Instead of having social and monetary value, remaining chaste until marriage has been given religious and spiritual value. Christians believe that God is pleased with those who keep their virginity and save sex for marriage, and that to do otherwise is a sin. Also, even though it was really only the women who were expected to remain chaste for their husbands, and not the other way around, Christians now expect men to also remain virgins until marriage.

My question is: when did this happen? At what point in church history did they adopt the ideas that premarital sex was a sin and that remaining celibate until marriage was a virtue? And why did the Church do this?

I'm a bit curious about this because of the twelve million or so Africans kidnapped and shipped to the Americas from about 1500 through the 19th century, about half ended up in Brazil. But by the mid-19th century, when Brazil began its slow process of abolition, the enslaved population was something like 1.5 million (in contrast something like 350,000 Africans were shipped to what is now the United States, but by 1860 the enslaved population was four million).

My understanding is that Brazilian slavery was particularly brutal and horrific, especially in sugar cane fields. But there also was quite a bit of manumission and a fairly sizeable population of freedpeople.

Do we have a sense how long on average a Brazilian enslaved person would be in that condition, and what was the likelihood that enslavement would end in a premature death, versus manumission? I'm also assuming this varied quite a bit in terms of who was manumitted or wasn't. Do we also have any sense of the numbers and fates of indigenous people who were enslaved?

I've seen some pretty in depth explanations in this group regarding the geopolitical and economic factors which helped tip the old status quo, but I'd love some good books regarding this complicated time in history. If anyone could offer up some excellent book suggestions I'd be extremely grateful. If there are any good, unbiased biographies written about Gorbachev I'd love to hear about that as well. Thanks so much in advance!

Here are a handful of things Nixon pursued that strike me as likely to cause a backlash among his supporters:

• Proposed the Family Assistance Plan, guaranteeing an income to American families.
• Established the Environmental Protection Agency.
• Administered the desegregation of Southern schools.
• Signed the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT), the first comprehensive and detailed nuclear weapons limitation pact between the two superpowers.
• Opened diplomatic relations with China after 20 years of animosity.
• Beginning the process of winding down the Vietnam War
• Set aside a percentage of federal construction jobs for minorities.
• Proposed legislation that creating the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

I realize that some of these issues were not as polarized as they are today, but it seems like every one must have been unpopular among a considerable portion of voters and politicians. They strike me as fairly courageous moves. In reality, did they cause a large amount of backlash?

From the silver bullets of werewolves, silver swords of the witcher, silver is an important part of killing unholy monsters.

I've even heard that the whole "vampires don't show up in mirrors" thing is because old school mirrors were made with silver backings.

I want to know if silver being holy has any origins in medieval folklore or if it's the product of the 19th century "invented tradition" of folks writing fan fiction traditions that they wanted to be true and ancient