If slave ships carried slaves to their colonial destinations, what did they carry on their return trips? Would like to know of an academic source that shows this. I'm thinking that they would have just carried cargo goods on the way back. This is important because it paints a fuller picture of the economic motivation for the slave trade for me, potentially.

The shared zodiac, that is; not the whale-dragon swap!

Yeah, my question is how did people in medieval times clean and treat simple cuts and bruises such as scraping your knees when falling or accidentally cutting your finger on something sharp? Thanks in advance for the help)

I’m currently reading Louisa May Alcott’s 1886 novel Jo’s Boys and a character pretending to be a pirate says “Avast me hearties!”

This is by no means shocking, but it has me curious about the origins of what we consider stock pirate lingo. I hadn’t previously thought about it, but if you asked me a week ago where that phrase comes from I might’ve guessed that it was a movie reference made popular by cartoons and TV. So it’s sort of surprising to me to hear someone using it exactly as we do today, like a generally understood cultural reference point, in 1886. Does anyone happen to have an idea how phrases like that came to be directly associated with pirates in the public consciousness?

For example, what was the point in history that American cigarette smoking rates fell below French cigarette smoking rates, and what event caused this?

Hey all,

Reading about the life and times of lower class Muscovite women and got to a passage that described their sleeping arrangements as basically the entire family just kind of snuggled up together in a single room. Presumably families need to expand, and to do that there needs to be some sex involved, so how did they make that happen when children and grandparents were likely in the same house (and specifically the same room?)

I have recently been looking into the history of the British Empire in India. One of the things I find most interesting is that most of the soldiers employed in British service were themselves local Indian sepoys. A quick look at the wikipedia page for the battles of Plassey and Siege of Seringapatam respectively, show that in both cases the troops were heavily waited towards being local Indian recruits. What was the experience like for these soldiers and what were their own motivations for joining the British forces?

​

Bonus addendum: How did the Indian mutiny of 1857 effect the experience of these Indian soldiers within the British army.

Is there any accounts of survivors of the 1347 bubonic plague (or any) outbreak? i.e. people who contracted the disease, broke into frank symptoms and recovered. What I am interested in is the duration of their convalescence, any lingering disfigurement/infirmity and how they were treated in their societies. I am aware of the genetic resistance factors to the disease.

Elizabeth Bathory is supposedly tortured and killed up to 650 girls in her castles left to her by her Count husband in Hungary., Especially her castle which had her own built in torture chambers. A lot of rumors were around and 300 witnesses. From what I can tell, there's controversy over whether she committed these murders or not and how many actually died and no key witness testimony. Do we have any archeological evidence of these bodies, or the torture chambers in the castle? How likely is it she committed these murders?

For more context, prior to his mission to interdict slavers off the coast of Benin, Aubrey had been sort of tepidly in favor of slavery. He often quoted his hero, Lord Nelson, to the effect that the abolition of slavery would be tantamount to the abolition of the Royal Navy (did Nelson actually say this?). However, after seeing it in person, he is sickened and furious and much more enthusiastic about his mission to hinder the slave trade, and to make his point he treats the captured vessel as described.

Many events in the Aubrey-Maturin series are at least loosely based on real-life events. How realistic is this one?

Background: I’ve grown up enamoured by modern history, particularly modern military history and international relations. I’m always watching history documentaries, reading all the books I can get my hands on, and regularly consult this thread for recommendations. I studied English Literature at Exeter and graduated 68%, enough to meet course entry requirements for top London unis. I’m unhappy with the business roles I’ve been in. I am a bilingual English-French speaker, and feel confident of engaging well with Spanish language sources in any potential historical research as I studied it for 3 years in school and can read pretty well. Am also prepared to invest time learning German, Finnish and Russian to engage with primary sources. Just started learning Mandarin but in very early stages.

Situation: I cannot stop thinking about a career in history (academia). Specifically I would love to study history in an academic setting as far as possible (perhaps PhD if given the chance?) and teach or do anything that would involve writing about the subjects I love. This year I’ve been studying the Spanish Civil War, WW2, and I’ve also looked at the Russo-Finnish conflicts, as well as Interregnum (re-reading the Richard Evans trilogy on this period). have studied them this year and throughout my life since being a wee lad. I know academic opportunities are incredibly narrow, and are the preserve of the cream of the crop, I.e. top of the class or best research etc. I would love to hear from people with experience navigating this field and what steps you took that led to a result along these lines.

I know specialisms are important when picking research fields, so right now I think viable routes of specialising could generally involve modern French or Spanish history up to and including WW2, Western or Eastern Front from German/Russian or German/western European perspectives (I know this is vague), or something to do with the Finnish-Russian David and Goliath military conflicts during ww2 (winter and continuation wars). This last subject seems to have particularly weak and ageing scholarship (Trotter comes to mind for weak, Max Jakobson’s diplomatic account is ancient and hard to find etc) so I think this could be fertile ground for attempting a bold new contribution to these topics that finds a good balance of meeting the rigours of academic standard while also renewing interest for general readers (I’m thinking commercially publishable academic work(s))

Apologies for the ramble but would appreciate anybody’s input on making this happen and how best to maximise my chances. I was thinking take a year or two to save up enough money to live, plus I could take a TEFL course to teach English as a foreign language to help support myself while studying (would give me a higher hourly rate) in addition to what savings I have. I would also apply for a loan to pay for the course .

I also thought taking more time out gives me a chance to read as many books on these subjects of interest as possible so I am better equipped to come to the table with ideas on what to write for dissertation and prospective PhD thesis; a full time masters is only a year long, and if I’m not mistaken PhD applications are made during this time, so there would be little time for consuming all the books I want to consume now, engage with the course materials. and still get an excellent grade that would lead to further study and academic employment. It doesn’t have to be a professor/historian (obviously this would be ideal), but also archival and documentary jobs on these subjects would be great. Also thinking of starting a YouTube channel for military conflicts and international relations as Biographics is decent but could be better done. This would also help me get in to a history programme I should think.

Thank you so much for your insights and unique perspectives.

Best, T

, Im a bit confused about Charlemagne's empires. Was the Frankkish Empire and the Carolingian Empire the same?

Why didn’t Imperial Russia, after the emancipation of the Serfs, focus on settling and colonizing the eastern coasts of Siberia? Could they have eventually been able to compete with the USA, and other western powers in Asian markets? If so, could the colonization of eastern Siberia have changed the outcomes of Russian Revolution, where an eastern Siberian state rises and develops a degree of autonomy since it would be heavily focused on trade with the USA and Asia?

I grew up in Ghana as a Christian so there is some bias. My mom would always go on these rants about how my ethnic group the Ga's are from Israel. My teachers would talk the same way about their tribes. Some "lost tribe". I come to America and African Americans are spewing some version of this Albeit more complex and perplexing. I did some research and I see some ethnic groups in Mozambique, Igbo in Nigeria. Can someone take a critical look at this and point me to the reason why this trend has gone on?

During the opening phases of the Mexican-American War, Zachary Taylor seemed incredibly talented and competent. His replacement, Winfield Scott, was perhaps even more so. The officers serving under them also showed themselves to be driven and competent. This makes it seem like the US had a large reserve of talented officers to draw on.

Then the civil war happened. I realize many of the nation's officers joined the Confederacy, but there were still many union officers who'd proven themselves during the Mexican-American war still in the service.

But again and again we see them leading US armies to disaster with incompetent leadership. Many downright refused Lincoln's order to go on the offensive.

What happened? Why could Lincoln not catch a break with his appointment of generals? You'd imagine he would have accidentally found a good one to lead the army of the Potomac, considering how many generals he churned through.

So where were all the talented union generals (besides Grant and Sherman, who were disgraced and only emerged because they seemed to be the only ones willing to fight)?

Every time I see one they either bombard me with a bunch of random facts that in all my time reading about it I myself have never even heard about

It strikes me as unlikely that graffiti would have been so ubiquitous if only 10% of the population were capable of reading it. Should we assume a basic level of literacy was widespread. Perhaps people couldn't decipher the flowery language of Cicero, but they could make out the sexual puns or political slogans scrawled on walls?