The US Constitution prohibits titles of nobility being granted by the US. At the time it was written did titles of nobility endow the nobles with:

Personnel: serf-type workers who paid rent on the land where they worked held by a noble?

Political rights: a seat in House of Lords, Commons or other similar legislative position?

Private property: land, house, estate?

Special use of public property: property owned by the King or other authority but used by a noble for residential or other special or private benefits?

It makes sense, but was this the case, and if so, how often? Why was it so different than in Medieval times when men were much more willing to go into melee? Thank you!

Why couldn’t they pacify the land they controlled? Why was guerilla warfare a constant issue?

When I check this sub for book reviews, I often find comments warning against popular "big histories" like those by Jared Diamond, Yuval Noah Harari, etc. But these books are appealing for a reason- they attempt to tie together patterns from various different historical contexts that can reveal interesting lessons that wouldn't show up if you just zoomed in on one culture or time period. If I want to read a book that takes a big picture view of human history like that, do you all have any tips on how to distinguish the good from the bad?

I ask because I just picked up "Why Nations Fail" by Daron Acemoglu from the library, but the reviews I could find on this sub seemed critical of it. The central question it poses, though, is one I'd really like to explore: "What role do institutions like democracy and free markets play in determining the success of a nation?" That seems like a very legitimate question to me, but also one that you could only really answer by comparing lots of different nations over long periods of time. So how do historians address these questions responsibly without falling into the "big history" trap?

Not sure if this is best in a music sub. But the amount of songs, whether blues or soul staples that get multiple releases by different artists within a short period of time is very wierd to modern ears.

For example Say a little Prayer written by Burt Bacharach was released by Dionne Warwick, Martha Reeves and Aretha Franklin all within 1 year. And its not unique.

Was the music industry very different? Did the power reside with the writer or the label and not the singer? What was going on?

Whether that be sexual abuse of slaves by their mistresses or relationships between black slaves and white women who were NOT their owners.

I know it was exceedingly common for slaveholders to rape and sire children with their female slaves, to the point where it was basically an "open secret."

Was this true of the opposite?

Obviously a white woman having relations with a black man would have been much more horrifying to society at the time than vice versa, so I imagine it was written about and acknowledged much less.

Still, I assume it must have happened sometimes, and there must be SOME record of it.

To narrow down the time period, I would be particularly interested in the Golden Age of Georgia under Tamara. But other periods and the kingdom of Armenia would be much appreciated as well.

Thanks in advance.

The common notion is that Japan surrendered in WW2 as a result of two successive nuclear bombings. However one fact that people tend to overlook is that hours prior to the bombing of Nagasaki, USSR declared war on Japan and invaded Manchuria. Was this invasion a more decisive factor than the bombings themself?

1. Would 1 million in confederate cash be worth anything today whether as a collectors item or anything?

2. Was confederate cash really used much? Was it used in banks at the time?

3. and would anyone have been even close to hoarding a million confederate dollars?

Just curious all around about it. Thank you.

it is often stated that a great percentage of Indians died of the diseases brought by the Spanish as they weren't immune to these. Q.: Why didn't the same thing happen to the Spanish vice versa?

The Nineteenth Amendment, adopted in 1919, granted the right to vote to all women in the US, but many Western States granted women suffrage before that. The first State to grant suffrage to women was Wyoming in 1869, that is to say fifty years before. How to explain such a difference? Were the mentalities in the West different from the East? Does this have something to do with Westward Colonization?

How did Spain alone have several developed and well connected cities when Columbus landed on an entirely new hemisphere that had maybe 10 large cities that made very little context with each other? How was it that during WW2 the people of Ethiopia were defending themselves against Italian tanks with literal bows and arrows and wooden spears?

Thanks

I was watching the Ken Burns "Civil War" documentary series earlier this month and it simply astounds me how little care seemed to be taken for Lincoln's personal security. This was despite many, many seemingly obvious red flags including:

Confederate agents, only a few months prior, had set a series of fires in New York with the intent to cause widespread destruction and civil disorder. Though the fires were contained only one of the agents were ever captured.

Lincoln was well aware that the Confederacy had spies in the north, several having been caught in previous years, such as Belle Boyd.

Lincoln himself, since before the beginning of the war, had been very personally vilified and hated by southerners and, as some may have seen in the news, even continues to be to this day.

So knowing that the Confederacy had covert agents in the north, knowing that they were capable of planning large scale operations like the New York fires and putting them into motion, and knowing that he was personally hated by the south, it boggles the mind why he seemed to have such little personal protection.

If anyone could give context to this I would be extremely interested in hearing about it!

144 commentssharesavehidegive awardreportcrosspost

Nowadays an infant death causes a huge trauma to parents, but in the past dying at young age was much more common, was people at that time more used to losing their children? Or was it also traumatic like it is now?

It is interesting to me what made the British Admiralty so confident that they've decided to send Venturer to face U-864 alone. Did they believe in their submarine's design superiority, did they perhaps believe that Jimmy Launders was an exceptional Commander, or were they simply desperate to sink U-864?

Maybe some other Royal Navy/Allied assets were sent to assist Venturer of which I'm unaware?

It is especially unclear, because prior to that no submarine has ever sunk another submarine while both were submerged.

there was a photo where they shows the outfits on newspapers, and to be honest it did look like a mockery of the KKK, but in case I am wrong, can anyone shed light about this?

Hello! I want to preface that if this is the wrong subreddit, please let me know where I can post this. I am a recent history grad, have my B.A. in it. I have always noticed; however, that many of my professors have very specific degrees. Their historical knowledge is always this super-specific scope of knowledge, as one would expect, but it has me very confused about how higher education with history works. When I go to get a master of doctorate degree in history, do prospective students find a school that has their very specific interest as a degree, or do students create their own degree title and complete the research for it on their own? I am very confused. I would love, very far in the future, to study the 1960s and its counterculture, but is this something I could make a degree from -- or should I expect to hone in all of my history knowledge for post-undergrad education?