In pop culture, I see a lot of medieval characters refering to age as (for example) "She is 7 winters old."

Is this just a made up thing, or people actually refered to age in "winter" count?

If that is true, when did they talk like that? And after people started refering to age in "years", did people still use winters as well, or did that stop?

Thank you in advance.

Why did Poland get so much territory from Germany in WW2?

In episode five, the main characters arrive at a port town where one of them observes European ships in the harbor. He says that he thought European ships were only allowed at Nagasaki. A local man replies that they get away with trading there because they bribe local officials, who then turn around and profit from selling imported European goods in Japan, and that if the bakufu gets wind of it the local officials just claim that the Europeans were shipwrecked in the area.

I know Samurai Champloo is deliberately (and often wildly) anachronistic and makes a lot of things up, but this particular bit sounded plausible to me.

Was it ever known to happen? If it did, surely someone got caught at some point and there's some record of it.

I have seen people say the idea is racist or morally problematic in some way. I wanted to know what historians thought about it in general. I know people might have specific criticism about “Guns, Germs and Steel” but I am more interested in understanding the perspective on the general idea.

how was it possible for them to be able to wage war against so many large empires at the time and bring them to their knees?

I read in a book written by the Historian Paul Johnson that when the Moors were invading Granada they were helped by Jews, he did not explain this very detailed or in depth enough.

Does anybody know more about the subject? Or any links to other books or sources. Thanks.

I’ve heard and read about how his public appearances were choreographed and protected by family, Secret Service, etc., but how widespread were rumors that the president was paralyzed or immobile? Would the common middle class American be aware of the presidents’ disability?

I've just finished reading Pre-Industrial Societies by Patricia Crone. I thought it was interesting, but the end section on how industrialisation came to be in Europe left me a bit dissatisfied. I was wondering if anyone could recommend further reading/give an overview of current thinking (I'm aware that book is now ~30 years old).

A summary of what she claims is:

1. A variation on the Jared Diamond argument in saying that it was inevitable that it happened in Eurasia, due to geography. What remains is why Europe and not Asia.

2. The agriculture-friendly nature of the land in Europe made it favourable for people to remain as local peasants rather than reverting to a pastoral/nomadic life following the collapse of Rome in the west. This naturally evolved into feudalism as peasants turned to strongmen for protection in an essentially state-less society.

3. European feudalism was unique in that when 'the state' came back it was constituted of the feudal landowners rather being a thin military-administrative stratum on top of them. This had the effect of greatly limiting the powers of the state to levy taxes and conscript armies. Thus allowing for the creation of self-administrating (though nominally not independent) cities and merchants whose wealth was independent of landowners. In other pre-industrial societies this was not tolerated as it was potentially destabilizing to the political order (she gives the example of merchant wealth confiscation in the Islamic world).

4. The 'elite' in Europe didn't natively speak the language of high culture (Latin), that language's claims to being sacred are tenuous (the Vulgate is a translation), and the keepers of high culture (the Church) were independent of any state. This lead states to generate their own high culture in vernacular languages. States were heavily tied to territory due to their structure being of landowners rather than above landowners. This lead to proto-nation-states with their own culture, language, and territory, and ultimately to the Reformation.

This all leads to intense military competition between the landowning/state powers and economic competition between the city-dwelling/merchant powers leading to industrialisation. She also briefly touches on how a mixture of classical rationalism ("logic and theory is above crude observation") and Christian thought ("God can be observed in the workings of the universe") leads to the scientific revolution.

Basically I thought the chapter was interesting but half-baked and wondered if anyone knew of any sources that expand on these ideas (or refute them/present an alternative).

Looking for something that's balanced, comprehensive, up-to-date, etc.

Athens sent the philosophers Diogenes, Carneades, and Critolaus to Rome in 155 BCE to aid in their negations for some fine that Rome imposed on Athens. I have found very little information via google on this event. Does anyone have any further information?

Hello historians,

I host a podcast where I take certain subjects and investigate their truth and/or significance. This week I am researching fairy tales.

It seems to me that they act as a sort of first hand account about the times they were told or retold in. For example, the reference to step parents reflected the after affects of the Thirty Years War, where up to 60% of the population, especially in parts of Germany, died.

What do you think? Are fairy tales historically significant, or are they more just stories for entertainment? Why, or why not?

Were*

I’m trying to really dive deep into European history. I was recommended the aforementioned titles, which one would you recommend I start with? I plan on reading them both. I’m looking to read the easier one first, then I’ll move onto the other one. Thank you!

Edit: for clarity, The Celts by Nora Chadwick, The Ancient Celts by Barry Cunliffe.

I know stuff like Macau, Hong Kong, etc were colonized but I’m taking large swaths of land in mainland China.

I get the whole ‘nothing to gain’ bit but there were MANY colonies that Europeans still colonized but had ‘nothing to gain’ from. Or not enough to justify colonizing them.

And it seems like the bragging rights of ‘I colonized China’ would be right up the Europeans alley. And for a lot of time I’m the late colonial stages at the height of say the British empire China was very weak compared to them.

So why did no one do it?

Did other countries turn a blind eye? Or due to Great Depression and other world events, did they completely miss it ?

On the way to Mecca, Mansa Musa is recorded as aying that the previous mansa sailed away to "find the limits on the ocean". While a 14th century ruler may have held incorrect ideas about geography, this seems like a great cover for a true story that may seem more dishonorable. Also, this was told in Cairo, a long way away from anyone who might contradict this story.

Hi there, I'm a fairly young (16) guy living in egypt, i always liked history and payed attention in class and whatnot, but a recent post on r/historymemes has got me confused. Basically, in class they taught us that the kippur war was a huge disaster at first but then the egyptian troops under leadership of el sadat pulled it around and beat Israel in 6 hours, the post on historymemes implies that is far from the truth, i was wondering what actually happened and where i could find non-biased but not too detailed information? Thanks for any help in advance