I am very fascinated by this topic, I heard that Egyptian magic was famous throughout the ancient world. I looked around but i always find books that teach you how to perform Egyptian magic. I was looking for (if it exists) a scholarly book that analyzes the historical texts and artifacts. Something based on science. Thank you in advance for every answer. I'm sure it'll help.

Hi! I'm working on a project and according to the director, King Richard was captured because he wore kingly rings, can anyone elaborate for me, not just on the rings but his clothing and accessories (like scabbards etc) and include sources? Thank you and happy Friday!

This is of course an infamous story in folk-history. Among the Pythagoreans, circa 500 BC, it became known that the square root of 2 could not be a rational number (or rather that 2 lengths could be incommensurable). This was completely against their beliefs, and dogmatic as they were, they made it a secret and potentially even murdered Hippasus for discovering or popularizing it.

This is often told as a fact by math profs or teachers, features in prominent numberphile videos and so on. But I've made the experience that history of math told by math profs is often not very reliable. Wikipedia says it happened "according to legend", none of the sources cited in support is very illuminating

What do historians say?

Did they have the same feelings of disgust as they had to other races, or did they view them in a mostly positive light? I'm generally curious

We often hear how the Ottoman army (and the empire as a whole) failed to keep pace with military and scientific developments in Europe. As such, they went from being at one time 'the terror of Europe' where their armies were nearly always victorious, to almost a laughing stock by the start of the 18th century. How much truth is there to this? Did they really fail to keep pace with the development of gunpowder armies in Europe or was there something more going on?

The era in question that I'm talking about is (roughly) from the late 16th century to the end of the 17th century, or from about the battle of Lepanto (1571) to the end of the Great Turkish War (1683-1699). Prior to then, the Ottoman army has been described as being one of the best organized in the world. They were almost unstoppable everywhere they went. Nicopolis, Varna, Kosovo, Mohacs, and dozens of other smaller battles where they didn't just win but practically annihilated their enemies. They had a few setbacks true, but these were mostly in sieges. It isn't until we get to the Long Turkish War (1593-1606) that we begin to see a noticible drop in their ability to prosecute successful land campaigns. This was a badly run war on both sides, and in the one major land battle of the war at Keresztes, it appears to have to have been a very close victory for the Ottomans, who only won because the Imperial troops stopped fighting to pillage the Ottoman camp, only to be routed themselves. They would have one last hurrah moment with the second siege of Vienna, but with their defeat there they would begin slowly falling back.

So, to summarize, I guess what I'm asking, in general, is how the rot set in with the Ottoman Empire. More specifically, I'm asking was there a real drop in the quality and organization of their armies or did they just fail to modernize enough? I'm going to throw a guess that the questions are somehow related.

I’m particularly curious about how states and rulers combated corruption by tax collectors/farmers and other officials.

Soviet industry was famous ^^(or infamous) for being 2 things; Heavy, and mediocre. But is that a deserved reputation?

Were things like power hammers, and lathes, and other industrial tool making equipment, or tractors and bulldozers manufactured in the USSR of respectable quality and available for purchase by outside countries?

For example, say I'm the government of a newly independent Tanzania and I want to build some steel mills and factories to strengthen domestic industry, Can I get good quality, cheap equipment from the USSR or am I dependent on the western markets?

Not really looking for a certain era or region of conflict, just whatever sources we have of how common folk or even lower nobility were told of their relative's death in conflict, either defending the nation's border or attacking in a foreign land, I am curious if different regions of the world had different approaches to telling the awful news

Hello,

I am currently in the process of figuring out the possibility of me restoring my German citizenship on the grounds of Art. 116 (2) Basic Law. My great-grandfather was born in Berlin to a Jewish father and a non-Jewish mother. According to the "mischling test" that was used under the nuremberg laws, he would be a mischling in the 1st degree as he had a Jewish father but was a baptized Christian. I have the records of multiple of his aunts and uncles on his father's side dying in concentration camps and his father's middle name had "Israel" added to it to indicate that he was Jewish. As a doctor, he was fired from his job in 1933 when it became illegal for a "non-aryan" to hold his position. Soon after, he moved to the United States. The latest date I have of him listing himself as a German citizen was 1939. In order to obtain citizenship in the US, one had to live there for 5 years. 1940 would have been 5 years. I have no documentation of whether or not he gained citizenship by the conclusion of the war and his son (my grandfather) does not remember if he lost his German citizenship. My grandfather and his siblings were born in Germany as well but due to the persecution, left the country. My question is, as a mischling of the 1st degree, would my great-grandfather have lost his german citizenship due to the eleventh decree to the law on the citizenship of the reich 1941? I think it might not apply to him because he wasnt classified as a full jew. I also wonder if I as his descendant meet the standard to get citizenship. I hope you guys can be of some help!! Please let me know if im in the wrong place for this. I couldnt find online whether or not someone like him would lose his citizenship in regards to that certain decree.

​

Thank you!

Is it similar to how people today believe astrology? As in X sign means you have X personality, or the future of the person who has X sign, and so on.

Hello Ask Historians. I'm working on a series of Anti-Wehraboo videos and I'm in the middle of a source that I'm not sure is entirely reliable.

The book is called The Blitzkrieg Myth by John Mosier. To be sure, I've known about the whole "Blitzkrieg was propaganda BS" since I can't remember when, and some of the author's basic arguments in the book's thesis certainly sync with what I've read elsewhere over the years.

The problem is that as I go on, I keep seeing red flags, things I 100% know are factually incorrect, and that makes me concerned about other arguments he makes that are more crucial to his thesis.

For those not familiar, his argument is that the myth of Blitzkrieg was manufactured mostly by Western theorists like JFC Fuller and Basil Lidell Hart, with the objective of making it seem like their pre-war theories, primarily in armored warfare, were correct all along, and that the early German victories proved them right.

Mosier argues against this by using things such as Germany's expenditure on building fortifications vs tank production prewar, and detailed accounts of the campaign in Poland, for example, to show that the Germans were in fact mostly practicing pretty conventional warfare using very infantry-heavy tactics rather than concentrating panzers to achieve "breakthroughs" a la Fuller's theories.

I will say that his descriptions of the Polish campaign in that light do sync with earlier research of mine, although I know how some historians will discount "blitzkrieg" yet say the Germans were practicing maneuver warfare and that they were in fact concentrating armored forces and achieving breakthroughs. If I could look directly at the same sources Mosier was looking at, perhaps it wouldn't be so confusing.

Also, he points out how the German panzers found themselves stopped by French armor in Belgium, but it seems one could argue that the Panzer thrust through the Ardennes is what proves this was "maneuver warfare," ie the attack through Belgium wasn't even meant to be the main effort and was just occupying the BEF and French while the maneuver element exploited a gap.

Essentially his thesis isn't just that Blitzkrieg was a myth, but that the whole "breakthrough"/maneuver warfare doctrine of the Wehrmacht was also a myth. To be honest I have some sympathy toward the idea given that much of doctrine the Wehrmacht did practice was based on old Prussian tradition and not some newfangled theory. My understanding is that the new thing they brought to the table was just really good combined arms coordination at the tactical level.

I'm sorry for the textwall but if anyone has any strong opinions about this guy's work, other sources to recommend, anything at all- I'd greatly appreciate it. I wouldn't be so skeptical were it not for the errors I found plus his academic background isn't exactly military or even historical.

I've recently learned that there was no Roman equivalent to the modern title of 'Emperor' - they preferred titles like 'Princeps Civitatis' (first citizen) or sometimes 'Imperator' (a military title) to keep the vestiges of the Republic alive. Later, 'Dominus' (master) comes into official use in the reign of Aurelian (270 to 275). But what about the Byzantines? Did they formally recognise the title of 'Emperor'?

Imagine a relatively unimportant town in western Europe around the year 1400 AD.

What options are there for "ownership" of the town? Does a noble technically own the land? Would it typically be considered "free", or were the Free Imperial cities of the HRE an exception, not a rule?

Who is responsible for the mundane operations of the town? Is it an elected mayor, appointed representative, town reeve, noble?

If the town is owned by a noble, what kind of events would they typically concern themselves with, assuming they otherwise leave the town to its own devices?

While I understand the "guards" of medieval towns were typically "voluntold" commoners performing a civic duty, is there any veracity to the concept of a "captain of the guard"? Who was responsible for the organization of the guards and watches?

Who would sit in judgement of a court? Who acted to enforce the will of the courts?

I'm trying to get a clear image of how a town would operate on a day-to-day basis, and I feel like I'm missing a lot of pieces here.