I love reading these historical accounts because we often get the perspective of both the individual traveler and people in the society that they traveled in. We get to read the traveler's opinions about new places and peoples and customs (etc.), as well as the opinions of the people in these lands and societies with regards to the unusual person who has traveled to them. I love these historical accounts because they let us relate to these pre-modern peoples. I feel like they give us a very humanizing perspective on all parties involved, be they individuals or cultures, or even time periods.

Aside from perhaps the most famous examples (Marco Polo and Yasuke), are there other well-documented historical accounts of people traveling far from home, ending up in distant lands, and meeting all sorts of new people and cultures that would be considered totally unknown and exotic to the people back home?

My great-uncle was KIA during Operation Clipper, as I understand it, and our family has just never known much of the circumstances. He was in the 333rd Infantry and died on Nov. 24, 1944. From what I gather this lines up with Op.Clipper in Gailekirchen, but I can't find what his specific unit was doing the day of his death or where exactly he was killed. I'd like to plan a trip to visit his grave in the Netherlands and see the areas he was in.

Are there any resources online to help find out more information?

Like if you were from one of the towns named after Tyr or Odin or Thor, were you most likely going to be in a regional cult that specifically worshipped that deity over the others? How much was the Norse pantheon actually a coherent interconnected story canon to the average person at the time? And how much was it just different groups of people in different regions that worshipped different things, kind of all just letting their lore blend together and combining individually-developed regional myths into a broader story over time?

For instance do we know that Thor was always considered Odin’s son, or is it possible that the people that developed and worshipped Thor started interacting with the people that worshipped Odin, and instead of fighting about it they compromised with “well maybe they were related” and it went from there?

And really I’ve always wondered if this applied to all of the other polytheistic pantheons too. How much did people on the ground at the time actually care about the broader overarching mythology, and how much was it a case of different towns and groups with different myths that developed independently, which were then retroactively combined into one canon as a compromise? Do we know of any times where perhaps a conquering ruler would recognize all of the different myths and deities as being part of the same broader story as a way to appease the different religious sects and cults that would otherwise have been at odds with each other?

And is it possible that lots of people weren’t necessarily “polytheistic” at all and it’s just historians looking at evidence of lots of different deities being worshipped at the same time and concluding that everyone must have worshipped or treated everything as canon? Like is it possible that Roman historians looked at all the archeology and history dedicated to the various Greek gods that people worshipped and came to the conclusion that it was a much more coherent interconnected mythological universe than it actually would have been to the average Greek person at the time?

This is a pretty random, although kind of fun, question.

In a book I'm reading, '1948' by Benny Morris, about the war between Israel and Egypt, Jordan, etc. I came across a puzzling sentence: '"But most of the Egyptians fled into the desert. The many shoes scattered by the roadsides testified to crumbling Egyptian companies and platoons that had turned into human dust," wrote one Eighth Brigade chronicler.'

The citation for this quote comes from a war photographer, Avraham Vered from a book 'Fighters for the Freedom of Israel'. The endnote in '1948' adds that: "The sight of endless abandoned shoes in the sands of Sinai was to characterize the Israeli victories in the selfsame battlefields in 1956 and 1967.

In short, I'm trying to figure out whats going on here. Why would fleeing soldiers leave their shoes behind? Is there something about desert warfare in the 1940s that would make this reasonable or necessary? Is it possibly a cultural signaling of surrender? Were they afraid to be recognised as deserters?

There is so much propaganda soaking up this conflict. Any good history books that give this conflict a fair assessment? Don’t mind if it’s a textbook, so long as it isn’t propaganda.

I've always wondered how cowboys and generally people of the Victorian era were comfortable in so many layers year round? Was it simply far too taboo to show legs and forearms, even as a man?

Hello everyone,

TLDR at the Front

We are contemplating a permanent change to the rules that would remove the 'No Example Seeking' Rule and replace it with more expansive allowances. For the next month we will be testing this out, and at that point consider whether to make the change permanent based on our observations. For the more expansive explanation, see below!

Why Is This Happening?

Although it has gone through a few tweaks over the years, the 'No Example Seeking' rule has been one of the longest running rules in the subreddit. Its been around longer than I've been a mod even. But while at the time it was instituted it was quite clearly a necessary rule, as with most submission rules, it was instituted because of pragmatic necessity in striking a balance on how to moderate the sub. As the current language in the removal notice notes, we remove these threads "not because the question is bad" but because "these kinds of questions tend to produce threads that are collections of disjointed, partial, inadequate responses." They could be tough to moderate in good circumstances, and back in the day when one such thread would get popular, near impossible.

But its been nearly a decade, and while sub growth means some of the factors which underpin the rule have, if anything, only increased - i.e. the sheer volume of visitors - at the same time the strength of the community has grown, and the tools available to us as moderators have improved markedly (the rule predates Automod!). As such, we believe it is time to revisit the rule and see if it still is necessary by instituting a test period over the next month where we will not be enforcing it. And if the apocalypse doesn't come about, we'll likely make those changes permanent!

What Are You Hoping to Achieve?

The biggest driving force behind this change is the recognition of how the rule interacts with the balance of the subreddit. On the positive, it exists because of the needs of moderation, but on the negative, it can limit the participation of some users, on multiple levels. Aside from the obvious fact of limiting the questions people can ask, it also serves to limit the answers people can write! One of the biggest hurdles we face on the subreddit is ensuring a diversity of topics. Since the site is driven by user generated questions, content reflects user interests... plenty of questions about Rome, Hitler, and what Hitler thought about Rome, fewer about women in 11th c. Korea, or artistic movements in 18th c. Ethiopia.

This isn't meant to be judgmental though, just a reflection of the irony that to ask a good question, it helps to have a little knowledge already, and for us, this means that many topics which could provide the basis for fascinating answers never get questions in the first place. As such, a major impetus behind this change is the hope that allowing more lee-way with questions that lend themselves to multiple answers in multiple places and times, it creates more opportunity for contributors and would-be contributors whose topics come up rarely, and more opportunity for our users to learn about times and places they might never have thought to ask about in the first place if narrowing down their query.

What Is Actually Changing?

To be sure, all other rules remain in place! Poll-Type, Soapboxing, Basic Facts, and so on remain in force and will be applied, and in some cases this means that a question previously removed as Example Seeking will still be removed under a different rule. But that section of the rules page has been removed, as well as the third entry on the summary rules displayed on the sidebar. For the next month, that rule will read:

3. Questions should be clear and specific in what they ask, and should be able to get detailed answers from historians whose expertise is likely to be in particular times and places.

Likewise the rules page itself now has a section entitled "Scope and Depth" which reads as follows:

AskHistorians is a space intended to provide in-depth and comprehensive answers to questions submitted by users. While we don't aim to stifle the curiosity of those asking questions, we do ask that they submit questions with an interest in a detailed answer. In this vein, we expect questions to present a clear and specific prompt for detailed answers which are comprehensive and based on current, academic discourse. While questions which have multiple answers are allowable, they should not require expertise across time and space; instead questions should seek examples of a phenomenon in a way that allows different contributors to provide detailed, comprehensive answers regarding the historical areas in which they have expertise.

Finally, the Basic Facts Rule has been modified to clearly include questions which are asking for "a simple list of examples or facts".

What Does This Look Like in Practice?

The intention of these changes is to open up the scope of what can be asked, but at the same time ensure there are checks on the 'extremes' which the rule was designed to curtail. Example Seeking questions are the ripest of targets for users, especially new users, to 'drive-by post' by dropping short comments which are simply a name or two, or a link to Wikipedia, and our intention is to balance a new approach to questions which might allow broader scope in questions, but still clamps down on questions which might invite such behavior. To give a sense of what is actually changing, here are a few examples of questions and how the rule impacts them. These are based on questions removed over the past month:

Questions which will definitely be allowed now

• In your period of expertise, how were identical twins explained? What sort of attitude did people have towards them? - This question is basically the Platonic ideal of why we are changing the rule. It is both specific in what it is asking, but open ended in who can answer, and very clearly is inviting an in-depth response from from a variety of users.
• Current attitudes towards the military often place soldiers as either awful people, or heroes. What sort of attitudes towards soldiers have existed throughout history? - This is a similar case as above, just more 'standard' in how it is formulated. It might not have the appreciated "in your period" opening, but it is still a question which invites a variety of in-depth responses from multiple perspectives.
• Has there ever been a female dictator before? - The old 'has there ever' type question are some of the toughest to enforce consistently under the old Example Seeking Rule because if a mod knows the answer is 'yes, only one', it can seem allowable as compared to 'wow there are 150 examples I can name off the top of my head' which isn't. The rules change means these questions will generally be allowed now.
• How do armies supply themselves? - Questions like this are one of the more common removals for Example Seeking, where they ask about a phenomenon which happens throughout time and space in a very general way. Much as we'd prefer people ask them like the first or second example, we'll usually be allowing these now.

Questions which likely would still be removed

• What are negative consequences countries have experienced in the past due to immigration? - Up to now, we'd remove this for example seeking. It no longer violates that rule, and depending on specific factors, a question like this might be approved, but it is also a question which we would pay close attention to due to the potential that it is not being asked in good faith. Soapboxing still applies.
• Dictators are known for doing terrible things, but what are examples of good policies that dictators have instituted? - This might not violate example seeking, but a question like this would potentially break the Poll-Type rule. Depending on specifically how a question like this is asked and what the topic is, it might also be removed under the 'good taste' exception that we reserve as mods, with a request to reformulate.
• What are some good historical fart jokes? - This is a question which clearly doesn't invite lengthy answers, so would be removed and sent to the 'SASQ' thread, or else could be resubmitted to ask more substantively about past perception about passing gas.

Please Bear With Us

A final, important note. This is a test period! We are still trying to figure things out ourselves. Fully expect to see it enforced wildly inconsistently over the next month. It might very well be that one mod approves a question which is identical to one another removed. That is fine, and please just roll with it. We'll be keeping a running tracker of things internally which we'll be evaluating how to fine-tune or revise things over the period. If it is still happening six months from now, then you can maybe complain. To be sure, the examples above we don't expect too much variation on, but there is a third, middle group which will be the most likely place where this occurs as we work to find where the new balance point is between "No longer example seeking" and "Basic facts just wanting a list of things". This group is the kinds of questions such as:

• What are some total badasses from history?
• What are some historical weapons which don't get shown in movies often?
• Who do you think is the most underrated historical figure?

These are the types of questions which no longer are covered by the Example Seeking Rule, but we expect to be the most likely to continue to attract bad answers. They aren't phrased in a way that invites long answers, but rather those 'drive-by' responses previously mentioned. Questions that ask roughly about these topics may get approved, but they also may get removed under the Basic Facts Rule or else the Poll-Type Rule, since they ask for either - or both - a simple list of examples without depth, or else subjective opinion. I'd again stress that we're finding our sea-legs with these questions ourselves, and will remove some and approve others as part of the experiment this month is to see just how such threads end up progressing.

What Happens at the End of This?

At the end of June, we'll head back to our ivory tower to discuss whether a) the positive impact we were hoping for seems to be happening, b) whether the negative impact which spurred the rule on in the first place is continuing and c) what the balance between those two factors is! We'll also be seeking input from our flair community on their perception of the impact as well, as we greatly value their input on issues like this as it impacts their engagement with the sub. We also welcome user feedback which can be left in this thread.

Once we've evaluated and discussed there are basically three possible outcomes. The first is that we are pleased as punch and continue right one along, making the changes permanent. The second is that we find some pros, some cons, and make some further changes to address those issues before formally adopting the changes as permanent. The final option is that the coming month is a disaster, we hate it, and we roll everything back to how it was yesterday. there is no guarantee for any of those three options, although given that we're generally optimistic, but also hardly perfect, some degree of the middle one is probably the most likely outcome if you're looking to wager.

When asked if he shot the president, Lee Harvey Oswald said, “I have not been charged with that, in fact no one has said that to me”. What was he charged with, and why did he seem confused by the question? Is there any weight to the many conspiracy theories surrounding JFK’s assassination?

As the title suggested, the historical description of the battle of ChangPing says that both Qin and Zhao sent an army in the size of about 500000 men. And after Zhao lost the battle, Qin buried 400000 Zhao soldiers alive.

I find such figures very difficult to believe. For comparison, the army of Alexander the Great was estimated to consist of ~50000 soldiers. I've read some sources that suggest the population of Qin and Zhao were about a few millions, how is it possible that they could support an army of this size with this population? How could they produce enough food and equipments to keep it supplied? Even if they had surrendered, how could Qin restraint and bury 400000 men alive? That would take a lot of time and work and surely once they had realised what Qin has planned for them they would resist and fight back?

After a brief search on the internet it seems to me that such figures were not heavily challenged. There're two similar questions asked on this sub but one of the answers was deleted, and the other one doesn't include a lot of credible sources (the author only included a link to baidu which imho is not a credible source).

Many battles in the Warring States and Han period seem to have involved armies in sizes that are hard to believe. My question is, how historically accurate is the description of the battle of ChangPing? Is it exaggerated, if so what is the modern estimations? What is the academic consensus on this?

How closely related are Native Americans and MesoAmericams? Why are their cultures so different? Do they share similar genetics? And most importantly why did native Americans never build grand structures like the MesoAmerican Mayans and Aztecs?

They clearly had a lot of influence, such as the Fatimids and contributed to major thinkers/philosophers like Tusi and Ibn Sina.

What led to Ismail theology to go underground and become relegated to the Pamiri mountains of Central Asia and India?

Were Ismailis ever actually a majority in any major medieval land, or were they always a small group?

In almost all other examples of nomadic invasions across history, the nomads were assimilated into the local culture, no other nomadic conquests have managed to take over the local cultures like the Arabs had, nowadays the Levant and North Africa identify as Arabic, why is this?

When he asked their parents about why they were doing that to the children (he references hard work), they told him "in order for the children to learn a craft (profession) and good manners". He also notes a kind of alienation (emotional distance) between parents and children from early on. I am wondering if it was normal for children in other parts of Europe or the world to work at that time, or does the evidence point out to more carefree childhoods elsewhere, in some or all social classes. I assume poor children would usually start to work early in life in almost all cases.

Edit: the reference is as follows: translated by Charlotte A.Sneyd, A relation, or rather a True account, of the island of England; with sundry particulars of the customs of these people, and of the royal revenues under King Henry the Seventh, about the year 1500, by an Italian, Camden Society, volumen XXXVI, 1847, 14-15.

I read on wikipedia about chariots. They seem to be strongly used in ancient times, but gor replaced by cavalery. Why was this? To use a chariot you need horses too. Did the cavelery fill diffrent roles?

I am trying to write a fantasy story with fairly accurate medieval politics but have been having a hard time finding information about how old kingdoms used to run. I tried to ask my questions on a writing research subreddit but was directed here. I know this subreddit is for factual things and not what-ifs so I will try to keep my questions relevant and specific.

How did new countries/kingdoms start? Where would the first piece of land come from and how would they declare themselves as an independent kingdom? I would imagine if a landowner declared themselves a king that the local king would just come and squash them, yet new kingdoms were somehow founded.

How did those kingdoms gain land? Did they buy it? Marry into it? Fight for it? Why would other nobles/kings have sold it, agreed to marry, or surrender it? What did a smaller or younger kingdom offer to the more well-established ones to not be assimilated, squashed, or left to die out on their own?

​

I have a basic but possibly inaccurate understanding of what a royal court looked/functioned like and the role nobility had in running a kingdom. From my understanding nobles were landowners who got their land either from inheritance or from the king as a reward for service. They ran the lands they owned like landlords and then paid the king taxes in return for military protection. Nobles pretty much were the king of their land and a kingdom was pretty much a group of landowners who agreed to be a group, agreed the king would be the leader of the group, and their level of influence was based on the amount of resources they had control over and how closely they were related to the agreed-upon leader.

My understanding of a court is that it was basically one never-ending networking party that various nobles would dip in and out of. They would show up/be invited and stay at a king's castle, networking, making deals, and discussing various needs of their lands, all while eating, drinking, and being entertained by the king's household.

Is this accurate? If it is then what power did the king actually have? He would have only had control over his own land/resources and many if not most of the military would have been made up of men sent to him by various nobles. Wouldn't the king have been subject to the desires of the most powerful nobles making them rather politically weak?

Also, I am very interested in the social/political practices and everyday life of medieval times but struggle to find sources that don't mainly focus on individuals (with no comment on why they did what they did or what society thought of it) or battles (also not discussing social norms or patterns). If anyone has any clear sources for these things I would love to hear about them.

I hope I formated this post clearly enough and followed the spirit of the rules.

Hi,

So basically, I have a question about the times France colonized Algeria (where I come from). I am a Algerian, but I got a french name. My grand-mother had the same french name (her dad chose it in 1940, when Algeria was under french administration). Is there a link between colonization and choosing a French first name for your children?

**My parents named me like that to honor my grandmother, because she died 3 months before I born ( I am 16yo) . I don't think it has a direct link with colonization but I am actually asking this question to understand why my grandgrandfather named my grandmother like that.