Of all the northern Italian city states, Venice is the only one that didn't end up a part of the HRE, why is that?

I was wondering this as I couldn't imagine fighting and possibly dying in a conquest in a far off land that I've barely heard of before. So what did the average Roman solider of this time think?

Sorry if I've done anything wrong, I usually just kinda lurk everywhere...

When learning anything about the Russian army, particularly in the second part of the War when they had the Germans on the run all we hear about is the mass rape and how drunk they were.

I always fail to see how an army who acted like this was so successful, and surely they could not have been well trained given the circumstances Russia was in.

Hello, r/askhistorians,

I'm in something of an epistemological or even existential crisis about the subject I love. I'm a History undergrad and can still remember the Damascene moment of reading I, Claudius on a train when the question to the boy Claudius "are you to be an historian too?" fired out of the page at yours truly. That was then. Now I'm despairing at the confusion that comes from reading about the Philosophy of History and what History actually means.

If the goal of science is not merely to obtain the Theory of Everything but also compress it onto a t-shirt, I seek an answer to the question 'What is History?' that I could explain to a new student. I'm currently incapable of providing an answer even for myself. I've always opposed the work of postmodernists and deconstructionists if only for the destructive impact it has - reading about the Science Wars and the assault on history in 1990s characterises the entire postmodernist enterprise as set on ruining every other academic discipline and rebuilding it in a neo-Marxist ideological framework. This is a ridiculous caricature but there's something pernicious about PoMos and Post-structuralists trashing History after the historical failure of every Marxist political enterprise that makes it difficult to look at the conflict soberly.

But on the response by Evans in In Defence of History and the subsequent student primers produced since then, I still cannot find any firm anchoring for how I would approach or describe the subject to others. Perhaps it's a personal limitation but I cannot think of History in anything other than childish metaphors and aphorisms about biases and repetitions that were dolled into us at school. None of the contemporary definitions or understandings of it seem consistent.

I do believe History is essential to human understanding and the consideration of life. Civilization could not exist wtihout it. But this is an idiosyncratic humanist definition and has no sound theoretical or epistemological basis. I'd be more at home in the 18th century. So help thou my unbelief. What Is History now and can it be compartmentalised into an aphorism or a quick defence against naysayers?

Thanks

In view of the current events in the Middle East, with IS making sweeping gains through the region, there has been much discussion about how to tackle this crisis - through precision strikes, arming the Kurds or even an invasion. The question begs to be asked - has any terrorist organisation in history ever been defeated/destroyed through military means alone, or at least predominantly military means, as opposed to negotiation, dialogue, political means etc?

From my understanding as of now, it mostly had to do with order and trade routs with Constantinople and the rest of the Byzantine Empire.

I have a few questions for you!

I've always loved the Arthurian tales (actually ended up studying them briefly when I was still at uni, though that was a while ago now and I'm not knowledgable enough to be certain on a few points, and I want to be accurate!)... but anyway, long story short I am looking at getting a tattoo based around the tales (focusing on Excalibur for reasons I won't get into, possibly incorporating the round table into the hilt somehow?? But like I said, I want it to be quite accurate, so I thought I'd just come check my info with people who know more than I do before I start designing it!

I have just a few questions!

What kind of sword is Excalibur? I had a quick flick through my copy of Malory's 'Le Morte D'Arthur' but couldn't spot anything concrete.. I'm thinking probably a spatha or a claymore?

Also, does someone know how many seats were at the round table (and, IIRC, wasn't each one to represent a virtue - like 'courage', 'honour', etc? Or have I made that up?)..

And, last question, can someone confirm that (in most versions, anyway) the writing on Excalibur is 'take me up' and 'cast me away'?

Thanks in advance for your help guys, I appreciate it!

I've had this discussion with multiple people, spanning an assortment of ages, backgrounds and historical knowledge. Coincidentally, I have always received differing answers on how aware the German populace was of the Holocaust, and to what extent.

I'll leave my leaning out of the matter, in the hopes of inducing a better discussion, but I am genuinely curious as to the extent of civilian knowledge during an atrocious era in human history.

I was just wondering what happened to the indigenous people of the Americas after colonialism, where are they now? How much of them are there today. Also, I'm curious to know how the Americas were like before colonialism, were they scarcely populated? Or did they have a considerable population and their own distinct culture and civilization?

Like today it's the iPhone or Xbox but what was the equivalent back then.

People say that just because a country has decriminalized homosexuality that they're automatically accepted and majorly tolerated, I find that some what hard to believe. Were LGBT individuals under communist Germany/berlin shamed on or what, was it ok to be LGBT in east berlin and could you be openly gay, or were East Germans/Berliners more conservative about that?

By my understanding machine guns, artillery, tanks, and airplanes are seen as inventions that brought about the conditions of WWI. That makes sense to me but what I never hear is any mention of the role of bolt action rifle. From what I know, by the mid-19th century most modern and wealthy armies fielded their soldiers with rifled muskets. They could fire 3 to 4 rounds per minute, and were far more accurate than muskets. As the century progressed single shot breechloading rifles began becoming standard issue. I recently watched the movie "Zulu", and felt like I saw an accurate depiction of their use. I would think a rifle that could accurately fire 10 rounds a minute would be a game changer. But from what I know, cover was rarely used and most fights still occurred in tight or relatively loose formations. In the very late-19th century bolt action rifles were introduced. How did they affect combat? I imagine cover had to be more widely utilized. I really feel like combat should have stagnated after these rifles were standard issue. Also how did cavalry continue to exist in any form.

(x-post from /r/downtonabbey)

I've recently started re-watching the show Downton Abbey and noticed that it portrays 1920s-30s Americans as being viewed as crass and inappropriate by their English counterparts. Women are seen as too forward, the servant staff is seen as being unprofessional for speaking "out of turn" to the elite, and as a whole, Americans seemed to be portrayed as non-traditional and ignorant of standards of politeness, to the point that it straight SHOCKED the English.

Were Americans during this era more forward-thinking about class and sex relations or is this just dramatized for the sake of a (admittedly soap-opera-like) good TV drama?

I am having some difficulty understanding the views and desires of the various political factions and was hoping someone could help break them down for me. For example, one source that I am looking at:

“But once the left had been quelled – essentially in the first three months of 1919 – and the Versailles ‘Diktat’ in May 1919 had dashed German hopes of a peace they considered ‘moderate’, political strategies changed. The business consensus immediately began to regret the compromises made with the moderate left, and the conservative right began to revive. Germany as a whole shifted markedly to the right between the National Constitutional Assembly elections of 19 January 1919 and the Reichstag elections of 6 June 1920. Weimar’s ‘welfare capitalism may appear bland to early twenty-first-century European eyes but it offended powerful forces at the heart of capitalism and on the political right and alienated huge numbers of workers on the left. To both it remained an object of bitter contest” (Balderston 1).

This mentions the moderate left, the conservative right, and a shift to the right. I'm not entirely sure what that means. Also it mentions welfare-capitalism. From what I understand it is like a company Union. If so, how does it alienate workers on the left, and why does it offend capitalists?

Thanks in advance, and sorry for any mistakes.English isn't my first language.

Hi all,

I've not seen this question before. how much he was paid by the state, and other sources of income?.

Thank you