How were telephone bills calculated in the early days of the telephone (late 1800s- early 1900s)? I'm thinking in particular of the days when you still had to talk to an operator and ask her to connect you to your other party. Did somebody at the telephone company sit there with a stopwatch to time your call, or was telephone service offered for a flat fee? Also, how much did a local telephone call cost in the late 1800s (say one Manhattan residence to another Manhattan residence)?

I'm specifically wondering about the situation in which there are no native settlements around that could trade food or information about the land. How did they act? Were they left to completely fend for themselves or could they expect to have supplies regularly brought to them? Would knowledge about fauna and flora from back home help devise survival techniques or would colonist be afraid of interacting with their surroundings?

The question applies to anywhere around the world. North and South Americas, Africa, Oceania, some island in the middle of the ocean, etc.

Finally, is there any known and well described case that I could read about?

Maybe this question doesn't belong here, as it is not specifically a question about a historical event, so feel free moderators, to remove my post if you deem it necessary. Anyways, are there any environmental historians around here? I just made my first foray into environmental history via the book The Mortal Sea: Fishing the Atlantic in the Age of Sail by W. Jeffrey Bolster (teaches history at the Uni. of New Hampshire) and found it to be both enlightening and refreshing. I haven't always understood the significance of the role that environment plays into the human story, but I am learning that perhaps humans and the environment are inextricably intertwined in a way that's difficult to really academically grasp. Are any of you familiar with Bolster's work? Is this idea of the connection between humanity and nature the fundamental thesis explaining the justification for studying environmental history?

I have been rereading Hornblower saga. I have a few questions, although I am sorry if they are stupid or too vague. I woul be happy if you answer even only one question!

1. How highly service in the navy was regarded at that time? To where would a young man from a rich aristocratic family more likely to be sent: in the navy or army? Why would they go in the navy at all, because to me very bad food, cramped living conditions and salt water every living moment sounds like its own kind of hell.

2. How high on the social ladder were captains? If such a captain was not from a rich and influential family, with whom he could hope to befriend on the shore: a priest, or a judge, or someone from gentry?

3. Could a retired captain live on a half salary? Where did all those captains go after being discharged at the end of the war?

4. By marrying Hornblower did Barbara Wellesley commit a major faux pas? A daughter of an earl married a son of a vilage doctor, yes, a captain, yes, recently knighted and probably a national hero, but son of a doctor non the less. It is one thing for Mr. Rochester to marry his daughter's governess, it is another thing if the roles would be reversed.

5. What was the difference between being knighted and given Order of the Bath and being made baron? To me they all belong to nobility.

6. Was there a tight, interconnected and intermarried officer class with several generations of those who served in the navy like it was with lots of professions in civil sector?

7. I know that the character of Hornblower was based on many real life examples, but aside from Nelson and Coghlan I could not find anyone that did not come from aristocratic family or gentry. Was it that hard to make such career for a boy with no background?

8. If a captain from the early 19 century was magically transported to a modern ship like the newly built HMS Queen Elizabeth, would anything be familiar to him aside from rank names? Any traditions, customs or rules?

Thank you!

I always see Islam referred to as "Mohammedism" and Muslims referred to as "Mohammedans" or similar terms in older texts. When and why did the shift toward using more directly Arabic terms occur?

At what point did humans really start to research and be intrigued by their ancestors lives?

I am currently reading Virgil's Aeneid and just finished the story of Aeneas and Dido, and it occurred to me that my image of the characters comes from later paintings I've seen of them, which seem to portray them as Caucasian. I would like my own mental picture of them to be as accurate as possible (not that how they looked if they existed really matters; I'm just curious), but I'm also interested in how Virgil and people of his time might have seen them.

I've started to read Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel, which is such an interesting book in itself. One of its main focal points is how agriculture is a huge factor in how civilizations develop. And since starting to read this book, I've been wondering how food production differed between the Eastern and Western hemispheres as a result of the different environments.

In an episode of Dan Carlin's Hardcore History (I think it was "Steppe Stories"), he mentioned that the bow of a steppe horse archer (I don't remember which tribe) was harder to pull back than that of an English longbowman. Is there any truth to this?

In the Edo period, at least to my knowledge, ronin would often become mercenaries or get involved in petty crime, among other things. How was this different prior to the Tokugawa Shogunate, i.e. in the Sengoku period?

What kind of possessions would a ronin, Sengoku or Edo, have? Would he have owned a horse or a suit of armour (in the Sengoku period)?

I remember that Alexander of Macedon was called "the Great" while he was still living, that Augustus was a title given to Octavius, but who gets to decide that someone gets an epithet? How does someone get "the Terrible", "the Conqueror", "the Magnificent", and is it something that happens posthumously or not?

Hey /r/AskHistorians! I am currently reading a book about the first world war and I am trying to better understand how the government Austria-Hungary worked during this time. I know that Austria-Hungary was divided mainly into two sections (Austria & Hungary) and they had two centers of government in Vienna and Budapest (I know there are much more factors than that because Austria-Hungary was a heavily culturally divided place, I would like info about that as well). I was wondering if you could tell me how the differences in the political/cultural/social aspects of these two regions affected how Austria-Hungary reacted after the assassination of Franz Ferdinand?

Wikipedia, particularly the article concerning the Business Plot, has been scrubbed of all mention of Prescott Bush's (Yes, GWB's grandfather) involvement in the Business Plot.

I was wondering if it was removed because it is not true, or if the Bush family has paid someone to scrub it, or if all of it is fringe conspiracy nonsense that conspiracy theorist embellished with their own rewritten version of history.

I have the audio version of Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. I've listened repeatedly to the coverage of this important period, when the Nazis went from relative obscurity to power and consolidation of that power.

I think it's fascinating. The way Shirer paints it, things had to fall just right for Hitler. The machinations of von Schleicher, von Papen, the various parties, President and Oskar Hindenburg all worked in a intricate dance to bring Hitler to power.

Then, consolidation of that power with the Röhm-Putsch in 1934.

Is there a really good book on this specific period?

We bought an 1857 Victorian home located on the bluff in Quincy, IL two blocks from the Mississippi river with Missouri on the other side. There are a few homes in town that have been proven to be part of the Underground Railroad, but I have no idea how they proved it.

When we bought the house, the previous owners pointed out an area in the basement (which is almost entirely original, with brick floors and all) that appears to have been a fairly good sized tunnel at some point. But that doesn't necessarily mean much, because Quincy has had lots of tunnels for lots of reasons. There used to be several breweries with tunnels that went all over town, for instance; and we had at least one prohibition bootlegger with his own system of tunnels. We know that the original owner of the home was the first banker in town, so he may have had his own reasons for having a tunnel. If it was a tunnel at all.

Societal impact, influence on public opinion etc.

I admit, I'm more of a financial legal historian focused on the 1800s. Some light shed on post-RMS Lusitania and post-Pearl Harbor pacifism would be neat. This is of course thinking of recent events in Ukraine. Still working on PhD I will note I do follow the notion that history never repeats itself, but eh..those that specialize in this area it would be interesting to hear from you. Maybe next financial crisis I can add to questions pertaining to financial legal history..maybe..it seems my PhD is making me more introverted as the weeks, months...pass by.

I hope the title is pretty self explanatory.

Thank you!