I'm doing some research on a very specific reference in some old Spanish chroniclers of the Conquest of Peru. I'm looking for the source of a rumor about the translator Felipillo, who is said to have betrayed the Emperor Atahualpa by purposefully mistranslating the Spaniards because he was "in love with" one of Atahualpa's concubines, and therefore sabotaged Atahualpa's communications with the Spaniards and made the emperor seem aggressive, etc.

I am very familiar with this topic and I already know that most of this was made up, due to the exaggeration and not-so-accurate translation of several Spanish and English historians who were writing this all down after it happened (Zarate, Gomara, Garcilaso, Guaman Poma, Oviedo, Cieza de Leon, some of the Pizarro brothers, and Clements R Markham and William Prescott to name a few).

I'm not asking whether this rumor is true or not- what I'm most interested in is this supposed romance between Felipillo and one of the emperor's concubines- some sources say that her name was Cusirimay Ocllo (also spelled Cuxirimay) and others say her name was simply "Sancta". In some versions of this rumor, Felipillo was having an affair BEFORE they executed Atahualpa, in another he was caught having this affair WHILE Atahualpa was imprisoned (I think I read something about Atahualpa himself walking in on them??), and in yet another, Felipillo is said to have raped the concubine AFTER Atahualpa was executed.

Which specific chroniclers contributed to which versions? Who changed her name from Cusrimay to Sancta? Who were the people who were actually there, and who was translating/transcribing from who?

I have a source that says that the historian chroniclers Agustín de Zárate and the Francisco López de Gomara "developed a story that Felipillo was caught with one of the wives of Atahualpa." I know a lot of what Gomara wrote was basically fudged in order to make the Spaniards look less bad about executing the Emperor because he was a Spaniard sympathizer. For example, Gomara says that “Once the usurper Inca was executed, Felipillo claimed his share of the inheritance and slept with Atahualpa's wife, a sublime honor given his commoner and provincial status.” My question is, what texts was Gomara working with? I have a feeling he had access to someone who was actually there with Pizarro, such as Oviedo or another scribe that's on the tip of my tongue but can't remember the name of.

I have other sources like Guaman Poma and Garcilaso who are known to romanticise the Incas and are more eager to excuse Felipillo and tell the tale differently (like he didn't rape the concubine but he was in love with her, betraying Atahualpa was a crime of passion etc.) But what sources did THEY have? Who were they translating?

Sorry this is such a long-winded and complicated question, but I'm hoping there are some scholars who are familiar with Inca/Spanish/Peruvian history out there who could help me track these sources down!

TL;DR - I'm looking to trace the sources and subsequent alterations of a rumor among old Peruvian historians/chroniclers about the translator Felipillo, who is said to have been "in love with" one of Atahualpa's concubines, whose name was either Cusirimay Ocllo or Sancta, in hopes of finding the origins of the rumor.

(Repost: accidentally used a slur in my first draft)

North America bro here (Canada) just started Peaky Blinders yesterday which led me down the whole European race relations rabbit hole. Up until I started this I had no clue Romani people even existed or that the animosity between them and broader “European” folks had been ongoing for centuries. Ik this is a very broad and nuanced topic but like if someone could summarize why is there a strong anti Romani sentiment in Europe today? What propitiates it? Any specific incidents one could point too? I’m very curious thank you to all replies in advance

There is so much talk about all the Jewish victims and rightfully so it was absolutely horrific what happened to them. But how come there is little to no mention of black people that were brought to the camps?

If you compare the way a medieval nobleman, an early modern aristocrat, and a modern billionaire dress, you'll notice that the dress of the medieval nobleman and early modern aristocrat is significantly more ornate than that of the modern billionaire. In fact, billionaires today dress rather plainly compared to how the ultra rich of the past dressed. When did this transition to sleeker, less ornately styled clothing for the upper classes occur? And why?

This is something I've seen in clickbait articles, /r/historymemes posts, and forum posts, often devoid of any and all context, and is conspicuously absent from any academic sources on "honorary Aryans." The closest I can get is a claim that a Nazi Party official got the declaration made in 1934 or 1936 so he could bring his Native American fiancée to Germany.

Judging by Hitler's praise for white America's efficiency in ethnically cleansing areas of the west during colonization, it doesn't seem like he or anyone else in the Nazi high command was too attached to them (Karl May fanboying aside).

Assuming that this is a fabrication, is there any idea as to where and when it originated?

I was watching Meltdown: Three Mile Island on Netflix and at one point the claim is made (With a photo) that is:

"A girl who was in high school at the time, she had been outdoors Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, riding around all day on a bike in Middletown. Her skin broke out with lesions."

I can't find any evidence of this anywhere, and runs contrary to what I know about the event. The only source I can find is from the show itself.

Is this something that actually happened? Is there any additional context?

I've tried to keep this as concise as possible.

Under the German Empire in WW1 and the Third Reich/Wehrmacht in WW2, how were conscriptees notified of their conscription? Would they get a letter in the mail, would uniformed recruiters come to their houses? Was there a lottery, and if so, where could I access records of the lottery?

How were records kept of WWI veterans’ service, (rank, specialization, weapon proficiency, unit assignments, etc.) in the interwar period (more particularly, following the disbanding of the Imperial German Army), if at all? Was the Wehrpass a thing in the Imperial German Army, or were those not utilized until the Wehrmacht? Further, if records were kept, what was the chance they would’ve been misplaced or destroyed?

Since the military age under the Wehrmacht was 18-45, does this mean that “older” men (for the sake of specificity, let’s say over 35 years old) were conscripted? If so, was there a higher conscription rate in this age group amongst veterans of the first world war, provided they were younger than 45?

Tying all of these questions together— also, TLDR—

Would it have been plausible for a WW1 veteran (conscripted in 1916 at age 17) to be conscripted into the Wehrmacht at age 40? Would the Wehrmacht have access to his records of service under the Imperial German Army? Would he have been conscripted because of his prior war experience and thought valuable to the war effort, or would it just be dumb luck?

Please forgive me if any of these questions are elementary—I’m not entirely sure where to even start with a lot of this stuff and have been using Wikipedia as a “guide” for lack of a better word. Any book recommendations for further research are also greatly appreciated.

Hadn't the entire world pretty much declared war/sanctions on them? Who would have still traded with them?

Also, would Allied European nations have sent troops/ships if a land invasion of Japan was going to happen? Or had they already gone through enough at that point and they would have just left it to the US, Russia, and China?

I know that though generally slaves were exploited for manual labor, some with advanced skills were exploited as artisans or house slaves. Did slaveholders purposefully invest in training slaves for a role or did they more just choose slaves that already had the ability to perform the job? Did they ever have a “job opening” and train up a field slave who had no previous experience?

Bonus question: It’s no secret that many slaveholders saw blacks as nothing more than draft animals and were ideologically opposed to a slave learning how to read. Austin Steward, author of “22 Years A Slave” was severely beaten when it was discovered he was teaching himself. Was this a universal view in the South, particularly in regards to slave owners? Or did some see it as another potential way to profit?

Let me give more detail

I was taught in school some aztec festivities involved making "pozole" (a kind of corn soup) with the meat of one sacrificed person, which was later given to everyone in the city

However, I've always had a couple of issues with this story. One is that thousands of people would want to eat from this sacred soup, so one person wouldn't be enough, you'd have to kill and prepare a ton of people, and now you run into the problem of time. You'd need to work full time for a day or two to prepare that much meat and that much soup

This all leads me to believe that while there may be a kernel of truth in this story, the reality was vastly different

Did this ritual really exist? And if it did, how was it actually practiced? What was the symbolism behind it?

As the title entails, I am curious about the historical and social factors that led to Catholicism being the only (to my knowledge) religion with such an official and established leadership structure (i.e. the Pope, cardinals, bishops).

Richard I was I believe the only Crusader leader who outright defeated Saladin to the point of Saladin being willing to sue for peace.

Given that Saladin was regarded as one of the best military commanders of his age, what allowed Richard I to defeat him?

It has been disputed by twentieth-century archeologists and historians, who claimed that to believe that was simply taking at their word Roman and Greek sources which were biased against Phoenicians (more precisely the Punic). However, tophets (cemeteries for sacrificed infants) were found around the Western Mediterranean in Punic settlements. Puzzlingly, none have been found in Phoenicia proper (current Lebanon, Syria, and the land of mandatory Palestine).

So is there a current consensus on the question, and if yes, why were no tophets found in Phoenicia despite infant sacrifice being a charge levied against Phoenicians by the Bible?

After all the trouble that he caused to the other European countries why did they decide to exile him to Elba instead of directly killing him? They'd have avoided the 100 days goverment

I am 99% sure to once have read a quote from an ancient greek character noting the environmental degradation around his city and notably the subject of deforestation, even if he may not have used that exact word.

I am now unable to find this or any quote similar to what I have in mind and maybe I just imagined it, but I wanted to ask if anyone here might now what I'm talking about, if there really is such a quote or any source where ancient writers made any explicit reference to deforestation or similar land degradation process in his time. I understand this processes may be inferred today through polen registries in sediments or the by comparing the description two writers might make of a same are over centuries, and I would also appreciate any information about what we actually know about deforestation in those times and how we know it, but I'm mainly interesting in getting any information about how they perceived and understood this process, if they even cared about it at all and what written pieces they may have left regarding this subject.

Welcome to Tuesday Trivia!

If you are:

• a long-time reader, lurker, or inquirer who has always felt too nervous to contribute an answer
• new to /r/AskHistorians and getting a feel for the community
• Looking for feedback on how well you answer
• polishing up a flair application
• one of our amazing flairs

this thread is for you ALL!

Come share the cool stuff you love about the past!

We do not allow posts based on personal or relatives' anecdotes. Brief and short answers are allowed but MUST be properly sourced to respectable literature. All other rules also apply—no bigotry, current events, and so forth.

For this round, let’s look at: Clothing & Costumes! No one tell the emperor, but this week is about clothing & costumes. Got a favorite outfit you want to talk about it detail that would be too much for anyone other subreddit? Bring it here so we can celebrate it! Share what you know about the process of making stuff to protect our bits, people who've designed or created the stuff to protect our bits, or anything related to the layers we put on top of our skin!

From what I understand the pre Marian Roman armies, citizens would pay and provide for their own equipment based on their property owning class. Given the massive losses Rome suffered at the hands of Hannibal, Rome was forced to open the ranks of their armies to lower classed citizens and freedmen. Did the state provide for their equipment? Were they given hand-me-downs?