What makes the last 11.000 years so different from all the millenia before? Why did the humans in America, in the Middle east, in Egypt, in China all develop agriculture within a relatively short frame of time, when no human had developed agriculture in the previous 100.000 or 200.000 years?
Related questions would be why writing, astronomics, math, or cities were all independently developed several times during that time frame and not in the much longer time humans had existed before. However, I guess that all of these could stem from having developed agriculture, therefore that one is of most interest to me.
1 Answers 2014-01-16
2 Answers 2014-01-16
A friend of a friend has sent me a recommendation for the book "Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War", by Gerry Docherty and James MacGregor (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hidden-History-Secret-Origins-First/dp/1780576307).
I'm not a historian, so I was wondering if the book is in any way credible? It sets of all of my conspiracy theory alarm bells. I've pasted the description below:
"The authors are not professional historians but are retired (GP + head teacher) WW1 researchers. They produce evidence that WW1 was planned and engineered by a powerful clandestine cabal within the British establishment more than a decade in advance. Originating with a group founded by Cecil Rhodes and Alfred Milner in 1891 (both men were responsible for starting the Boer War) pledged to defend and extend the British Empire, the plan to destroy Germany as a threat to British (and then subsequently Anglo-American) supremacy was hatched under the Balfour/Salisbury administrations and continued under the Liberal government of 1905. Parliament and most of the cabinet were deceived. The Entente with France and Russia contained secret military agreements committing the parties to action in the event of an attack. The British army was reorganised and Belgium was involved in the detailed planning. Edward VII was the architect of the Triple Entente. Invasion and German spy scares appeared regularly in novels and the press (the best of the novels, Riddle of the Sands was written by Erskine Childers, the elite's agent inside the Irish Republican movement) - the contrived panic brought the Official Secrets Act and the predecessors of the modern. intelligence services. Provocations were organised to try to trigger a conflagration (Annexation of Bosnia by Austria in 1908, the Agadir incident 1911, Balkan wars in 1912 & 13) culminating in the Sarajevo assassination in 1914 - all were directed from London using foreign diplomats whose loyalty was bought and other 'useful idiots'. Lloyd George, the great radical until about 1909, was co-opted and corrupted by this secret elite. The state pension was a much reduced thing partly because of the massive naval expenditure. Fascinating stuff and another volume to come."
2 Answers 2014-01-16
I know that there likely are not public opinion polls going back as far as the birth of the SCOTUS, but I just had a general interest in this question. Anything you know would be interesting.
4 Answers 2014-01-16
It seems odd to me that prospectors would make a lot of money selling gold ore, or even smelting it to actual gold, since it takes a lot of gold ore to make gold.
2 Answers 2014-01-16
I'm aware they had class divisions. Jarl (a lord), karl (a freeman) and thrall (a slave/serf), but i was under the impression that they had a sort of different structure, unless i'm mistaken.
Where did chieftains come into this social structure?
How did the Viking feudal system look like, was it different from the rest of Europe? How did raids work into this system? How was land divided among Jarls and how was land divided among karls?
Did they always have kings, or was that something that developed later on?
1 Answers 2014-01-16
1 Answers 2014-01-16
I've heard a lot about the 'stab in the back' myth about how Germany only lost the war due to betrayal from within, but at the time did the average citizen think they were still strong and not on the verge of defeat? How about actual soldiers?
If so, why?
1 Answers 2014-01-16
Or did the knowledge on how to make firearms was acquired by all the European powers at the same time?
1 Answers 2014-01-16
I have lately been interested in the idea of history as a tool. Over the previous decades, I am curious as to how much of what past societies taught as 'history' was not so much 'history' in the academic scientific pursuit we all strive for it to be, but rather, I wonder if there are notable accounts of governments creating new histories for a people, and teaching that in a stylized way in an attempt to mold and shape the narrative of that society. I see a large part of the identity of a society resting in the history of that society (and I am sure others have noted this as well). So, with that in mind, have there been clear instances where a leadership hoped to reshape a people by telling them a new 'superior' history in contrast to the old history, which maybe they perceived as damaging, harmful or subversive?
1 Answers 2014-01-16
Did they support the axis powers invading everyone? And did they care about the concentration camps or the nazi's in general?
2 Answers 2014-01-16
circa .....266BC lets say
3 Answers 2014-01-16
The seal, pictured here, was found in northern Estonia and could be from the 15th century. I have no information about the coat-of-arms on the seal.
1 Answers 2014-01-16
2 Answers 2014-01-16
Was asked to repost with a better title. So I got the question after playing a lot of Rome:Total War, where War Dogs were used by Romans. They had a few trainers, and several dogs per trainer, who released the dogs to attack the enemies. However, I couldn't find references of Romans ever using them as front line troops(is that the right word?), the only example of dogs being used that way is according to wikipedia,
"Mid-7th century BC: In the war waged by the Ephesians against Magnesia on the Maeander, the Magnesian horsemen were each accompanied by a war dog and a spear-bearing attendant. The dogs were released first and broke the enemy ranks, followed by an assault of spears, then a cavalry charge."
3 Answers 2014-01-16
1 Answers 2014-01-16
HAVE A HISTORY TEACHER EXPLAIN THIS IF THEY CAN:
Abraham Lincoln was Elected to Congress in 1846.
John F. Kennedy was Elected to Congress in 1946.
Lincoln was Elected president in 1860.
Kennedy was Elected president in 1960.
Both were particurlarly concerned with civil rights.
Both wives lost a child while living in the White House.
Both presidents were shot on a Friday.
Both presidents were shot in the head.
###NOW IT GETS WEIRD:
Lincoln's secretary was named Kennedy.
Kennedy's secretary was named Lincoln.
Both presidents were assassinated by southerners.
Both were succeeded by southerners named Johnson.
Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Lincoln, was born in 1808.
Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Kennedy, was born in 1908.
John Wilkes Booth, who assassinated Lincoln, was born in 1839.
Lee Harvey Oswald, who assassinated Kennedy, was born in 1939.
Both assassins were known by their three names. Both names were comprised of 15 letters.
###NOW HANG ON TO YOUR SEATS!
Lincoln was shot at the theater named "Ford".
Kennedy was shot in a "Lincoln" car made by "Ford".
Both Booth and Oswald were asssassinated before their trials.
###HERE'S THE KICKER!
A week before Lincoln was shot, he was in Monroe, Maryland.
A week before Kennedy was shot, he was with Marilyn Monroe.
###BUT WAIT! THERE'S MORE!
Lincoln was shot in a theater, and the assassin ran to a warehouse.
Kennedy was shot from a warehouse, and the assassin ran to a theater.
1 Answers 2014-01-16
For my dissertation I have chosen to look at the use of privateers by England in the Caribbean, I have read a lot on Henry Morgan but am struggling to find more sources
1 Answers 2014-01-16
I understand that as with Caesar, the speed of his army was his strongest aspect. But he was also an accomplished fighter himself. How did that come to be?
Also how did his huge empire not fall apart so easily? I've read he was very open minded about other cultures and basically let them be without too much hassle. But I imagine most people would still rebel against him. Seeing as he just took their lands regardless of if he let them keep their beliefs and such. Was it mainly fear he used to keep them down? Or are there documents that tell of great rebellions during his rule?
Also it must take a smart man to understand how to use fear a weapon. Where did Temujin learn this along with his tactical insight.
4 Answers 2014-01-16
1 Answers 2014-01-16
Imperial Japan seemed to hold immense respect for the Samurai and many of their values seemed to be upheld in the society, particularly the in the army. For example, the Japanese soldier's "Banzai charge" and their belief that they should end their own lives rather than being shamed by being captured. I can even remember watching a documentary (The World at War) where a Japanese pilot refers to his plane as his equivalent of a Samurai's sword.
2 Answers 2014-01-16
With the recent surfacing of a video of a US held captive for four years, I got to thinking about how "this sort of thing" always seemed to occur in the Middle East. I'm specifically recalling Hezbollah's kidnapping campaign in the 1980's, but it always seems that whenever a militant group dedicates the considerable resources to holding someone for months or years (instead of a short period for a standoff), it always seems to happen in the Middle East. Admittedly, Somalia and Nigeria seem to be adopting the tactic as well in recent years, but it doesn't appear to be a long term tradition.
The wiki article I cited, says "the prolonged holding of hostages are thought to be 'primarily based on Iranian foreign policy calculations and interests'," (Ranstorp, Hizb'allah in Lebanon, (1997) - p. 147) but that seems a bit facile to me, even when confined to just the Lebanon campaign. Is there something unique about the mindset of the region or perhaps of Islam itself that makes it more amenable to this tactic?
EDIT: Wordsmithing.
1 Answers 2014-01-16
A few months ago I made my way through the entirety of de Sade's 120 Days of Sodom. It was by far the most obscene thing I've ever read. The specificity and number of passions from simple to murderous was stunning, and it became much harder to read as I progressed.
Since reading the book, I've been curious as to the balance of imagination and experience within his writing. How much of the book was based upon de Sade's experience of the debaucheries of Libertinism, and how much was fantasy? Did the libertine culture of the time foster similar acts (at least with regards to the earlier passions), or was the Marquis simply attempting to be as shocking as humanly possible?
I wasn't sure whether this would be better suited for r/literature or r/AskHistorians. If you think I'd do better to try there, please let me know!
4 Answers 2014-01-16
