2 Answers 2021-06-11
I am understanding where this argument is coming from.
Depending on what source you read, who you ask, and where you live, a certain event in history may be portrayed very differently. Some truths are widely accepted, while others may be overlooked or lost.
It's like that social experiment where dozens of people pass around a rumor, and at the end, you likely hear that the original rumor has been greatly altered.
What do historians think of this?
1 Answers 2021-06-11
1 Answers 2021-06-11
It seems to be a matter of fierce debate. Unfortunately I could not find any reliable English language resources.
What I found so far:
- The author of a pamphlet that played a big part in inciting the murders was paid by William for several years. It is unclear whether the payments began before or after the pamphlet in question was published.
- William refused to prosecute the murderers and in fact rewarded some of them and furthered their careers.
- William mentioned to Charles II in a secret letter that he was willing to get rid of Johan and his "cabal" of followers.
As you can tell, these instances don't really prove anything.
1 Answers 2021-06-11
I have this plaque with his rank and "Ordinance 1st Army", as well as the areas "Normandy" - "Bastogne" - "Remagen".
This has piqued my curiosity and I've been trying to research more about Ordinance 1st army, what they did, and any records or documentation of their role or place in these areas. Does anyone know any good resources where I can find more information about Ordinance 1st army or what that specifically means?
Much appreciated, thank you in advance
1 Answers 2021-06-11
3 Answers 2021-06-11
This theory doesn't make sense to me, weren't there some some half Hunnic people in roman history? If they were half Xiongu, wouldn't they stick out visually so much that someone would mention this in the histories?
Or do I have some faulty assumptions? Turkish people don't look as different from Europeans as Mongols do
2 Answers 2021-06-11
In 1974, economic historians Robert Fogel and Stanley L. Engerman released the monograph "Time on the Cross: The Economics of American Negro Slavery." In it, they argued that early-mid 19th century southern American slavery did not match the popular perception, and that some of these perceptions were influenced by racism on part of both slavers and abolitionists. Their main points are covered in the first few pages, as paraphrased by this public source. The one I'm interested in is point number eight, which claims that slave living standards (life expectancy, diet, work hours, etc.) were not considerably worse than those of contemporary free American workers, and thus far above most of the planet, even in richer countries. From a free preview I've been able to spot the following statistics:
-Life expectancy. On p. 126, the text claims that slave life expectancies at birth were only 13% lower than those of whites at about 35 years, and higher than the average in France.
-Diet. On pages 111-114, the book claims that the average calorie consumption for a slave was 4,185, with a (by contemporary world standards) high amount of meat consumption (this was higher than a freeman's 3,741 though, obviously slaves worked harder and longer). Their charts state that slave diets were largely comparable to those of freemen, with the exception of the latter eating slightly more meat and milk. They consumed six ounces of meat and one glass of milk per day, with the rest of their diet mostly being grains and potatoes (especially corn and sweet potatoes). Furthermore, the book states that the slave diet "was not only adequate, it actually exceeded modern (1964) recommended daily levels of the chiefr nutrients. On Average, slaves exceeded the daily recommended levels of proteins by 110 percent, calcium by 20 percent, and iron by 230 percent, and two and one half times the recommended level of vitamin C."
-Housing. On page 115-116, census data is quoted showing that the average slave household was 5.2, compared to freemen at 5.3. Most slaves lived in single-family households and house sharing was uncommon. The family was the core unit of slave society. While the authors admit data is fragmentary, they assert based on "comments of observers" that the average slave house was a cabin about 18 by 20 feet with one or two rooms, with a wooden structure, raised plank floor, and a brick or stone chimney. It states that this was comparable to free workers of the time.
-Clothing. On pages 116-117 the book states that, based on the records of large plantations, a standard annual issue for adult males was four cotton shirts, four pairs of pants, and two pairs of shoes, while for women it was four dresses, or the material needed to make them. Hats were issued annually and blankets biannually. Socks and underwear were issued irregularly. These clothes would be supplemented by whatever the slaves made or bought themselves.
-Work hours. On page 208, it's stated that the work year of a southern American slave was 275 days, and that during peak labor periods, they worked 75 hours per week, the same as free farmers.
Obviously these would be controversial statements. My question: after fifty years of advances in economic science and historiography, what is the general academic consensus on this point today? Note that I am not asking about the validity of any of their conclusions. I am solely concerned with the validity of their data. Not having access to the full text, and with them not really elaborating on some of their sources within the preview I was able to see, I couldn't begin to guess at this myself.
1 Answers 2021-06-11
For those who don't know, Google NGram graphs the use of words or phrases in published books over time.
Here's the link to the diagram for "faith," 1500 AD - 2019 AD.
1 Answers 2021-06-11
Was there any systems in place for her? Any welfare programs or something? Would they hand her her dead mother's items and tell her good luck?
1 Answers 2021-06-11
1 Answers 2021-06-11
1 Answers 2021-06-11
This is the concept art here
2 Answers 2021-06-10
When a military is retreating with damaged battleships floating around in the sea, and suppose they decide that these ships cannot be repaired in time and must be scuttled -- what happens to the soldiers on those ships?
Do they just sink with the ship, or are they brought aboard other retreating ships?
Specifically, I'm wondering about a certain narration in this video about the battle of midway: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXjydKPcX60&t=7s
At 24:25, the narrator comments that the "[Akagi] sank the following morning, taking 267 souls with her" and similarly for the Soryu and Kaga. Does this mean the men were simply ordered the sink with the ships, or did those losses come from the previous days of battle?
1 Answers 2021-06-10
1 Answers 2021-06-10
Wikipedia say it was but it says [citation needed]
1 Answers 2021-06-10
This is including basic addition, subtraction and to an extent an understanding of economics. Would the average farmer have been educated enough to deal with big figures or would it be limited to simpler ideas such as counting money?
1 Answers 2021-06-10
General history if possible, but 1700’s onward African history would also be good
1 Answers 2021-06-10
I just was curious about the HRE and then got onto some memes that the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy nor Roman nor an empire. At first it did make me laugh but then I thought about it. I think we all can agree that it wasn't really that holy xD But the word "Empire" in German does mean "Reich" which is a synonym for "Kingdom" or the Kingdom of a Kaiser. This does make sense for me. But now comes the part that made me really wonder: the Roman part. From my knowledge the city of Rome and the papal state was a part of the Empire but was it really that integrated in the Realm (thereby justifying the Empire's name as the successor of Rome)? Or were there other aspects why it was called like this? I only know that the emperor and the pope often fighted about who has the higher rank before god and who is allowed to crown himself/has to be crowned, etc. So I hope you can help me with my thoughts about the HRE and with your huge expertise :) And sorry for my bad English, trying my best.
1 Answers 2021-06-10
2 Answers 2021-06-10
I've read somewhere that it wasn't until the last half of the 19th century that orchestras started to be composed of professional musicians - but I can't find the source. I could imagine that emperors and kings would have had professional musicians at their courts, but a whole orchestra?
1 Answers 2021-06-10
I have seen both terms used for a variety of items and I was wondering if historians differentiate between the two concepts? Are they essentially categorizing the same idea? Is it a matter of intent? Skill? Gender? Status?
For example, it's fairly common to see a detailed, handmade 18th century quilt labeled as "folk art" despite the utility of the item (keeping people cozy in cold weather) while an equally detailed example of decorative embroidery from the same period might be labeled as "craft" or "handiwork" despite it's definitional decorative use.
Related - Are these definitions only used for Anglo-American hand work or are there similar differentiations when looking at art and craft from other regions? Western Africa, China, and India all come to mind with a history of craft and art that are treated as interchangeable by European sources, but I must assume there is a distinction between the two in other cultures as well. Or am I being too eurocentric with that assumption?
1 Answers 2021-06-10
I've recently been interested in learning more about history and i want to know some great resources for learning about history.
1 Answers 2021-06-10
