Hello all, I've been reading from books in my local library about medieval history, but their selection seems barely better than wikipedia in regards of some information.

I get that barbarians (vikings, pirates etc.) came to raid and sometimes establish themselves in a semi-permanent camp to terrorize de countryside, but was there a lot of wars between lords and kings in medieval times? It seems it was mostly wars against barbarians.

If there was war between lords, I know that there were some about religion, of course. Beside that, I guess that some motives could have been to seize richer lands (fertile, mines, etc.), or is that a modern point of view on war?

TL/DR: In our medieval history, what led lords in war against each other?

I'm reading A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens. He mentions, among a collection of other trades, a "gunmaker" in Paris, around the time of the French Revolution, and this piqued my curiosity.

1. Was "gunmaking" at this time a trade that a person would do, along the same lines as a butcher or carpenter? (ie. presumably an apprenticeship to a master gunmaker?)

2. How did gunmaking as a trade become established?

3. How much of a gun would a gunmaker construct himself (stock, barrel, ammunition, etc.)? Who would make the parts he would not?

4. When did firearms go from implements of war, presumably outfitted during conflict, to something someone would purchase for private ownership?

5. Were most guns made by private individuals for retail? For some reason I assumed that gunmaking at this time was primarily the purview of the state.

6. If gunmaking by individuals was a thing, who would outfit a nation's army (I assume the logistics of this would be beyond the means of an individual or even a group of individuals)?

7. Who made up the primary market for firearms? The nobility?

8. Were there early restrictions on gun manufacturing and gun ownership?

9. Were certain nations renowned for the skill of their gunmakers and the quality of their firearms?

10. How much would a gun cost around the time of the French Revolution?

I'm primarily interested in the development of the gunmaking trade in Western Europe (especially France) from its beginning to the time of the French Revolution, but I would also be curious to hear answers to these questions as they pertain to the Ottoman Empire as well.

Today I was watching a Ford documentary and it talked about how he tricked the media to into thinking he was starting a new company which scared the investors. He then had his son approach investors and buy back the stock until the Ford family owned 100% equity. Would this be legal to do today?

This Monday Methods comes courtesy of /u/henry_fords_ghost, who notes that:

At least in my area, vast amounts of the legwork/research is done by old car hobbyists rather than academic historians, but I know most of the academics who do study early autos are variously reluctant/unwilling to rely on it (or maybe just unaware that it's been done)

So, historians, do you find yourself incorporating ideas or raw data collected by enthusiasts?

Are academics in your specialty welcoming or resistant to working with enthusiasts?

Enthusiasts, what have your experiences been when interacting with academics?

Edit- Next weeks topic will discuss Material Culture

I've been listening to Mike Duncan's revolutions podcast and have found the French Revolution fascinating. I want to know more and have nearly finished Christopher Hibbert's book. I keep seeing in reviews that it's a good intro to the subject. I now want to go more in depth. I've already looked at the book list in the sidebar and have noted those recommendations down. Can I get some more recommendations on good primary and secondary sources for this period please? Thanks.

Sorry, I meant to add for both events and individual key players.

Today it is common for politicians to lure businesses to their cities and states with tax breaks, incentives, and generally questionable behavior. This is widely agreed upon as an integral piece of neoliberal economic politics.

How did the economic policies of cities and states prior to the creation of trickle-down policies differ? Did they try and offer incentives to businesses to locate? Did businesses locate more organically with labor growth and specialization? Obviously the economic policies during this time accepted a much higher rate of taxes on businesses.

Any recommended citations/books/articles would be wonderful, Thanks!

Just rewatched HBO Rome and fascinate by the politics of the Roman Republic. Personally I am wondering why so many people wanted to destroy the Republic and found an Empire. At least in the USA we have been taught that Republic is the best form of government. What was wrong with the Roman Republic that caused its demise and specifically how did it differ from the "ideal" American Republic?

The gist I get is that the Senate was run by rich Senators who were corrupt and didn't benefit the people. But what exactly did they do that was so egregious? I've also been reading Appian's The Civil Wars and it basically sounds like it all started with the Plebs trying to pass laws stealing land from the rich, and the Senate responding by murdering the tribunes they tried to elect. While murder is plainly wrong, I don't see how it was right for the plebs to initiate their aggressive land theft programs guised as "reform". Can someone fill me in on the details ellided by Appian?

And when did this trend begin?

What was the difference? Was it just a matter of degree and the emphasis they placed on community rather than individuality, or was it some fundamental concept which made them think differently to us? And when did this attitude change?

I've read that it was the bombing, the atomic bombing, the Invasion of Manchuria, a mix of all three, or just one of these events leading to surrender. What is the consensus?

How did the Soviet media antagonize the Polish state and justify the Molotov-Riebentrop pact?

So when Christianity started to spread, you ultimately had Jews who believed in the fledgling Christian ideology but still identified as Jewish. So when does the distinction become clear?

Garret Hardin wrote about the Tragedy Of The Commons, although he later stated that a more apt title would be the Tragedy Of Unregulated Commons so I'm taking his desired title as the correct one.

According to this mental hypothesis a field grazed by two herds of sheep belonging to two different owners, too small to provide enough grass for both, will create a Tragedy Of The Unregulated commons. It becomes basically a free-for-all where it's within each herd owner's individual interest to get their own herd to graze as much as possible, otherwise they will graze less than they need.

Socialist Allan Engler says that "When property was held in common by tribes, clans and villages, people took no more than their share and respected the rights of others. They cared for common property and when necessary acted together to protect it against those who would damage it."

That seems fishy to me. Didn't nobles (and churches) used to own all the lands in the past and the peasants were just caretakers? That right there is privatization, if only as a loose term. There was an authority hanging above the sheepherders, regulating their moves. Also the technology wasn't there for taking too much advantage of lands and other limited resources, nowadays overpopulation and industrial machinery have rendered that point moot.
As far as I know.

Just to be sure, were there any examples throughout history of limited resources (grazing land, fruit trees, rich soil for crops etc) where tribes, clans and/or villages set aside their differences and settled amicably on the equal distribution without first attempting a free-for-all, along with violence against anyone who tried to thwart them?

Hello everyone,

I'm currently writing an essay about cultural change in Britain during the Roman and Saxon periods. I've gotten pretty far, but am struggling to find sources and arguments on one particular issue: how the Celts, after a near genocidal, or at least very violent, invasion by Rome (Tacitus related in Agricola how the Ordovices were wiped out. They weren't even sold into slavery as was common practice), who had far superior military tactics and technology and destroyed and surplanted the British religion, just reverted to it's tribal Celtic past (however briefly) after the withdrawal of the Roman army in c.410AD?

Did Rome just not have a lasting impact? If not, why?

Edit: Ok, people are giving me not very helpful answers like "get more sources" or "look at different types of sources". Bingo, you've got why I posted this in the first place: to find said sources.

Edit 2: Thanks for the replies. Kinda overflowing with material now. Any more would be great, but I'm also doing a small (1000 word) section about how the change in Religion between Celtic Paganism to Romanised Paganism and Mithraism to Early Christianity and Pelagianism to Germanic Paganism to Roman Catholicism affected Culture. I have Bede's Ecclesiastical History to help, but any other sources would be appreciated, particularly about Roman Religion in Britain and Early Christianity.