3 Answers 2015-06-12
He rode along with two other people, William Dawes and Samuel Prescott, yet they seem lost to history, most people are only familiar with Paul Revere. Why?
1 Answers 2015-06-12
I see this all the time in movies and the like and I've always wondered it was true. And if it is, why would they waste all that stuff just to blow it up?
3 Answers 2015-06-12
I will offset this by stating that I am by no mean an academic in history or any subject related to humanities. But, this does not mean I am not deeply fascinated by it. I am very interested in doing some casual reading and I would really appreciate guidance from a group of qualified individuals such as your community.
I will give a short explanation of my academic background and what it's ties with history were. If you are not interested or think that it would be irrelevant to the answer you would provide, free free to skip to the next paragraph. Throughout my education I have come into contact with history in multiple occasion as it was mandatory in my schools curriculum. Needless to say I enjoyed most of and I was fairly successful at my studies. Although I do have to admit that the formula became a little tiring. For anyone wondering historic studies consisted of 3 "cycles" in my 12 years of education. The cycle always begun with studies about various civilizations none of which dated before 3000 B.C. and ended with the fall of the Roman Empire. The second part of each cycle consisted of extensive studies of the Byzantine Empire and finally, the last part consisted of "Modern" history. Naturally, every time the "cycle" was repeated every period was studied at greater depth and more focus was given on the political scene of the period and the tensions and stances of neighboring civilizations rather than focus only one as we had done before.
Not much time has passed since I graduated and now slowly but steadily my ties with history are being severed. This is exactly why I am directing the topic question to you. I will follow up with a little something which shows my thought process and approach to the matter.
Let's say I wanted to expand my knowledge of the time period between 800A.D and 100A.D. How do I start?
I assume I have to limit myself in one particular region, it seems highly improbable and and unrealistic to study all civilizations that existed on this planet during that period.
So lets assume I limit myself to Greece, which I assume is a logical step considering Greece's importance to the time period and region.
Is Greece too big of a region?
Should I limit myself to only one city, or maybe two or three at most?
Assume I do limit myself to only one, or two or three cities, where do I start reading
Is Wikipedia a good place to start?
Should I buy books with historical texts from Xenophon and Thucydides or other relevant historians?
How do I tell apart a book that contains accurate information from an "ancient aliens" kind of of book that is full of speculation, historical inaccuracies and incredible mental gymnastics.
If I have the ability, which I do to an extent, should I read the untranslated originals of the works of Xenophon and Thucydides?
These are just few of the numerous questions that pop into my heard every time I think about this and it really stops me from even starting.
I hope I have not tired you and I certainly hope all those questions offered a little bit of insight into my thought process and have given you a good understanding of the kind of advice that would help me. I am sorry if this does not comply with the rules, but as far as I can tell it should not be a problem, although I have to admit I just skimmed through them.
4 Answers 2015-06-12
1 Answers 2015-06-12
Hello, I need to do a presentation on Post-Soviet Russia, and I was looking to see if there were any useful books that a historian could recommend.
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/books/europe#wiki_russia
This only has The Oligarchs: Wealth and Power in the New Russia, which I can get at my library, but I was wondering if there were any other useful books to read.
1 Answers 2015-06-12
2 Answers 2015-06-12
Interested in the subject. Fiction or non-fiction. Thanks!
1 Answers 2015-06-12
1 Answers 2015-06-12
I was just wondering as I'm writing a story, and would really want my character to have one.
1 Answers 2015-06-12
In Sallust's The War with Jugurtha, when he describes the rise of Jugurtha he is painted as a very sympathetic, talented, and reasonable figure. His step-brothers are painted as the bad guys. However, as soon as the envoys of Jugurtha and his step-brothers arrive in Rome, we are given a full speech against Jugurtha with little to no response from his envoys, everyone in favor of Jugurtha is considered as bought by Jugurtha, and even Sallust divides the two sides into ones that take money over justice and those that don't. Why is this? Which tone more accurately represents Sallust's opinion and what was just adjusting his tone to fit the times?
1 Answers 2015-06-12
It occurred to me recently while reading some literature on international affairs game theory that it's heavily in a state's interest to eliminate rivals while they're still weak.
Since there were absolutely zero credible state-vs-state security threats to America after she developed nuclear bombs, why did America not take the initiative and immediately crush any opposing nuclear programs? A bomb or two on the USSR, severe and credible threats against other Western countries (striking investment funds, blocking food supplies, etc.), and other nuclear programs would have instantly stopped, no? America would have had instantaneous control of global policy at the interstate level.
Instead, America let its rivals become enormous security risks. Why? I just don't understand the lack of foresight here--especially since the US Senate, state legislatures, and American nuclear scientists all immediately petitioned Truman to establish a global federation to prevent a nuclear standoff. It's not like the country wasn't warned.
2 Answers 2015-06-12
2 Answers 2015-06-12
It always appears on television (eg Game of Thrones), films and in video games (eg Witcher III) and it's normally tied in with the Norse funeral rights. Is any of this true to the Norse? If not, did any other culture do it? Which ones if so?
1 Answers 2015-06-11
1 Answers 2015-06-11
It seems to me that the Achaemenid dynasty has not been as celebrated as later dynasties in Iran. For example, the Achaemenids barely appear in the Shahnameh while there is a long section on the Sassanids. In a link posted a few days ago, some Iranian playing cards from the 1930s display various Persian dynasties, but not the Achaemenids.
Compare this to the West, where (at least in my experience) I only learned about Achaemenid Persia in school. Any historical films with Persians will always have them be Achaemenids (think 300, even as fanciful as it was). As another example, in the Civilization games, the Persian civilization is only Achaemenid Persia and nothing in the Persian civilization alludes to any other period in Persian history.
4 Answers 2015-06-11
I've read a few texts suggesting that the Teutonic Knights relied on the assistance of local civilians to act as militias and cooperative parties during the Northern Crusades. How would these crusaders communicate with the Balts? Did the Balts have to learn German, or vice versa?
1 Answers 2015-06-11
If world war 2 was all about Polish independence, then did we fail?
1 Answers 2015-06-11
I read recently that racism as we know it didn't really exist until around the 13th-14th centuries. I was unable to find any succinct explanation of why this happened, and what its catalyst was. Is racism as we think of it a relatively modern concept?
1 Answers 2015-06-11
2 Answers 2015-06-11
1 Answers 2015-06-11
I was inspired by this recent NPR/History article, sent to me by a friend who thought I might find it inspiring. I did, but only partly for reasons he probably expected.
I'm not absolutely sure, and I can't prove it, but I don't believe the link and reference in the short paragraph about 'Jennie Hodgers' was in the original version of the piece I read as it was sent to me. I had written to the author asking about this specifically in between. I did not hear back, but he may have added that reference in response to me and others. His linked source consistently refers to Cashier as a woman throughout. But I don't know anything about the reputation of that source.
From his original, I was curious why a woman pretending to be a man in order to fight during the Civil War would have perpetuated the ruse right up to their death a half century later. The motive of pension is obvious, but the more I read about Cashier, the more I found myself persuaded that he was not a woman in his own mind, but instead lived his entire adult life as Albert Cashier.
One source I read said that his death was precipitated by a fall which resulted from him stumbling in a dress he had pinned up to wear more like pants. While the veterans home he had lived in was aware of his secret, they respected it and allowed him to live as a man. Two to three years before his death, however, his mind started to deteriorate, and he was moved to the Illinois State Hospital for the Insane (in 1913). There, his secret was discovered during an assisted bath, and he was made to wear a dress until he died two years later.
Some clues emerge for me from what's not explicitly stated. In order for his secret to have been discovered that way, it would have been necessary for the veterans home to have delivered him as a man and never let on. What would have been their motive? I suspect it's that they considered him to be a man, even though we know that they knew of his secret.
The Albert D.J. Cashier website maintained by the Saunemin Historical Society (which maintains his postwar home as a museum) uses his male name consistently (except when relating his origins), but also uses female pronouns throughout, as if they can't seem to make up their minds about how he saw himself. Their only direct remark about his gender is that, "it is purely speculation as to why she decided to change her identity." That seems like a cop-out to me, but I'm not an historian so I'm only expressing my feelings about it.
The site also notes that although he was buried with full honours, in his uniform, with a headstone bearing his male name, local citizens added a second tombstone in the 1970s bearing the female name he was born with.
I'd like to know what actual historians, people far more qualified than me, make of this. My gut tells me that Albert Cashier saw himself as a man his entire adult life, and never wavered. I know it's impossible for us to know for certain, but what does the available evidence argue?
Thank you.
1 Answers 2015-06-11