What would she know about sex? What type of sexual experience might she have either with a partner or alone prior to her wedding night?
Would her male counterparts have typically been better informed about sex? What would a typical man's experience with sex have been like prior to marriage?
1 Answers 2021-01-11
I am, of course, just generally interested in learning more about medieval demography and historians' methods, so anything related would be helpful. But here are the details that led me to this:
I'm trying to understand the (often changing) system of administrative divisions in medieval England and figured the Domesday Book of 1086 would be a "good enough" set of data to work with (being the iconic medieval census). But I cannot figure out how 1 - 2 million is calculated. I'd like to show my math below and maybe you can point out my error or where I may have left something out:
So the Domesday Book includes 40 counties/shires, mostly corresponding with the traditional historic counties of England. Each one is further divided into an unlimited number of hundreds/wapentakes/wards, of greatly varying range. But a hundred is defined as 10 groups of 10 households, AKA 100 households. Or rather, 100 hides, where 1 hide = the amount of land needed to support 1 household.
The main number I can find for "average household size" is 3.5 people. Let's do a high-estimate calculation and a low-estimate calculation. A population of 2 million / 3.5 = 571,428.57 households, and a population of 1 million / 3.5 = 285,714.29 households.
Divide those by 100 each to find the number of hundreds in all of England. So, anywhere from about 2,800 to 5,700. Divide those between the 40 counties, and that's an average of 70 - 143 hundreds per county.
But that can't be right at all! Cornwall only had 9 hundreds. Event Kent, with a particularly high amount it seems, only had 61 by my count.
A few concessions: most of what I'm reading is coming off of Wikipedia (although nothing looks like it would be contestable so far), I understand the Domesday figures are considered rough at best, I'm doing some serious paper napkin math, the assumption that "1 household" is 3.5 people on average is probably questionable, and I'm relying on units primarily concerned with the agrarian population. But what am I missing?
40 counties, with a (rough) average of 30 hundreds each, each with 100 households of 3.5 people... that makes it look like the population should be closer to 420,000. Is there some huge chunk of the population not being accounted for? Are the populations of settlements (those which enjoy borough status and exist outside of the feudal land system) being excluded and can make up the rest?
1 Answers 2021-01-11
I was taking a break from doomscrolling Twitter to wikiwalk, and learned that the film Java Head (1923) about an interracial relationship, and it got me thinking: in the segregated atmosphere of the 20th century, when and how were interracial relationships acceptable on-screen? I mean, I know Lucille Ball-Desi Arnaz had their on-screen relationship, and William Shatner and Nichelle Nichols had that on-screen kiss on Star Trek, but was it just a gradual change or more of a watershed kind of thing?
1 Answers 2021-01-11
Hi everyone! Slightly more than a year ago, we wrote what we thought would be an unusual edition of Monday Methods, when a president was facing impeachment. Maybe we tempted Fate (or Clio) in posting that, because here we are again, needing to offer an explainer of the the impeachment process in the U.S. Congress, and a space to ask questions/clear up misconceptions. We did not anticipate the seditious activities occurring at the United States Capitol last week when we wrote the previous post. The riot at the Capitol at the request of the President makes it fairly likely that Donald Trump will be the first president ever to be impeached twice. Edit: The House has now introduced articles of impeachment.
This is not the place to discuss the current impeachment proceeding in the U.S. House of Representatives, but the mod-team has noticed a bit of an uptick in questions about the process, so we thought this would be a good reason to talk about the process historically. Posts referring to the current proceedings will be removed.
So, let's be about it, people!
Impeachment is a term that refers both to the process of gathering evidence and introducing articles of impeachment against a president, and more specifically, the act of voting on articles of impeachment in the House of Representatives, which is the first step in the broader process of removing a federal officer from their position. Impeachment is not a removal from office, but a vote on impeachment functions as an official indictment that results in a trial. (Federal officers, of course, include the President and Vice President, but also other members of the federal government, such as judges.)
The U.S. Constitution outlines the impeachment process in Article 2, Section 4, which reads:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
If a person is convicted by the Senate following an impeachment in the House, there can be several consequences, as outlined in Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution:
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
In plain language, that means that the Senate can punish someone convicted in an impeachment trial by removing them from office and/or prohibiting them from holding federal office in the future, but that an impeachment trial and conviction does not carry with it criminal or civil penalties. In other words, the Senate couldn't punish an impeached person with jail time, fines, etc., but also, an impeachment conviction does not mean that the person is not liable to civil or criminal charges.
Impeachment is a process that starts in the House of Representatives. The House can in theory simply hold a floor vote on an article of impeachment, and, if it passes, the president is impeached. However, in the three most recent impeachment proceedings (Clinton, Nixon, and Trump), house committees debated articles of impeachment before bringing them to the floor.
After an impeachment in the House, the president is put on trial in the Senate, with the chief justice of the United States (currently John Roberts) presiding over the trial.
Members of the House of Representatives serve as prosecutors, and the president would have defense lawyers. In the three cases where a president was impeached previously, the Senate had to work out rules of the proceedings beforehand, including the length of time the trial would take, what kind of testimony would be allowed, whether to call witnesses, etc.
If, at the end of the trial in the Senate, two-thirds of senators vote to convict, the president would be removed from office and the Vice President would become President.
Yes, three presidents have been impeached — Andrew Johnson in 1868, Bill Clinton in 1998, and Donald Trump in 2019. None was convicted in their Senate trial, and Johnson and Clinton both finished their terms in office.
Richard Nixon was not impeached, although articles of impeachment were being debated by the House when he resigned. His Vice President, Gerald Ford, became president when he resigned.
Impeachment and conviction is also a thing that can happen to other civil servants. See the last section for more information.
This is a term from British common law, which can be boiled down to an accusation of abuse of power by a public official. It’s not limited to criminal offenses. One of the ways that we gain some insight into what the framers of the Constitution thought is in their contemporary writings; in Federalist no. 65, Alexander Hamilton described the process as such:
A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.
Impeachment itself is inherently is a political process that courts won't get involved in. (Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993) -- no, not that Nixon, a judge named Nixon.)
Each past impeachment proceeding proceeded from slightly different grounds.
In 1868, Andrew Johnson was impeached under several articles, the fundamental issue being a dispute with Congress about his power to fire and appoint cabinet officials. The main article dealt with a dispute over the Tenure in Office act, which Congress had passed to prevent Johnson from firing officials whose appointment had required the "advice and consent" of the Senate without the consent of the Senate. (That is, the Senate wanted the power to concur in the removals.) Johnson was acquitted of that charge and, later, two others, after which the trial adjourned.
In October of 1973, the House began an impeachment inquiry into Richard Nixon after the “Saturday Night massacre,” when Nixon ordered three top Justice Department officials to fire a special prosecutor looking into the Watergate affair; two resigned before Robert Bork complied with his order. In February of 1974, the House voted to give the Judiciary Committee authority to investigate whether “high crimes and misdemeanors” had occurred in Nixon’s presidency. Judiciary reported articles out to the full House in July, but Nixon resigned in early August before they could be voted on.
Bill Clinton was impeached in December of 1998 on grounds of perjury to a grand jury and obstruction of justice. A Senate trial in January 1999 failed to convict Clinton.
Donald Trump was impeached in December of 2019 on two charges: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Both were linked to the claim that he had solicited foreign interference in the 2020 U.S. presidential election. A Senate trial in 2020 failed to convict Trump.
Again, due to our 20-year rule, that's out of scope here; but with only a few days left in Trump's term (Joe Biden becomes president at noon Eastern US time on Jan. 20), an impeachment proceeding in the House may lead to a Senate impeachment trial after Trump leaves office. Your preferred news outlet will likely cover any further proceedings.
There is precedent for this -- William Belknap, President Grant's war sectetary, stood trial in the Senate for graft following his resignation. Given that the current Senate majority leader has shared plans for a post-term impeachment trial for President Trump, it is at least possible that a proceeding could happen after he leaves office. At that point, the possible punishment would not hinge upon his removal from office, that being a moot point, but his ability to serve in government again. (Sen. McConnell will no longer be majority leader once Georgia certifies its Senate elections and its two new Senators are sworn in.)
For more information on historical impeachments, you can check out this website from the U.S. House of Representatives, and in particular this page which lists all persons who have been impeached and/or convicted of "high crimes and misdemeanors."
7 Answers 2021-01-11
I occasionally become curious about medieval history, including topics like diversity or mythologies/Christianization. I know that white supremacist groups have a vested interest in portraying a specific image of many historical topics in that area, particularly as the region of interest moves north. Because my knowledge of the time period is based mostly in pop culture and fiction, I am not confident in my ability to get a sense of how reality-based a source might be.
If I'm doing casual reading online (looking for popular essays/websites/other reading), what advice do you as historians have for making sure that I am not accidentally consuming propaganda or white supremacist-inflected information? Are there particular "tells" or red flags to be on the lookout for?
9 Answers 2021-01-11
I was always taught in school that Ford pardoning Nixon was a good thing and brought about a (albeit brief) period of national healing and moving on from the Watergate scandal. Lately though I've been reading that this is not the case at all and that historians have changed their views and now generally agree that Ford's pardon was bad and that the better course of action would've been to prosecute Nixon for everything they could've charged him with. Are either of these views true or is the consensus somewhere in the middle? What do historians generally think of Ford's pardon today?
1 Answers 2021-01-11
Hello,
recently I got myself interested in microhistory and read some of the classics (Zemon Davis, Carlo Ginzburg, Gene a. Brucker...). my background is a bit more artsy and I thought it might be interesting to try and find connections. What I'm curious about is if there is some kind of microhistory of objects. I found an essay by I. Kopytoff which gave me a nice theoretical start about how to think about 'biographies of things', (although it's from `86~), but what really looking for is something a bit more microhistoryish and less anthropological theory. I wonder if there is there something like The Return of Martin Guerre but say, about a 16th/17th c. painting or sculpture, ideally not a famous masterpiece but a more ordinary object.
It might be too specific? in any case I'm very much open to venturing into neighbouring topics (maybe history of books? sacred objects?)
It's my first time here hope I'm doing it right! <3
3 Answers 2021-01-11
It’s a common trope in Ottoman-related novels, fanfics and TV series that an Austrian/Venetian/Persian spy was just in the palace. Did Habsburgs, Venetians, Persians and other countries hostile to the Ottomans develop secret agents and spies from among the eunuchs and concubines?
1 Answers 2021-01-11
I cant find any proof that battle axes were a thing, and from the history i know i cant find any record of such weapon. If they were a thing, who would have used them?
2 Answers 2021-01-11
In The Anarchy, William Dalrymple attributes to a rainstorm the British victory over a much larger Mughal force at Plassey. The Mughal forces did not protect their gunpowder from the rain, so their artillery stopped firing. The Mughal commander assumed the British guns would also be silent and tried to overwhelm them with a cavalry charge, but the British did keep their powder dry and they eviscerated the Mughal cavalry and killed one of their commanders.
So, why didn’t the Mughals (or their French artillery advisers) keep their powder dry? Did they not have the technology to do it? Did they have an incorrect theory of why gunpowder didn’t work after rain? Were they just careless and overconfident? Had they simply not thought of doing so?
1 Answers 2021-01-11
1 Answers 2021-01-11
1 Answers 2021-01-11
The "Land of Milk and Honey" refers to the Promised Land of Jewish tradition, as described in Exodus chapter 3 verse 8: "a land flowing with milk and honey".
I was just watching the Cogito video What Is Islam? and it says that the Islamic version of heaven has "rivers of milk and honey".
Meanwhile, some Muslims ridicule the idea of "Milk and Honey", such as Muhammad Ali, saying:
Why do I have to wait till I die to get milk and honey. And I said 'Mama, I don't want milk & honey, I like steaks & .......I said: 'Milk & honey is a laxative anyway!' Do they have a lot of bathrooms in the heaven!!'".
What makes "Milk and Honey" so special? They weren't particularly luxurious, nor did they have a reputation for being as nutrient-dense as meat or fish. If a promised land is to be prosperous, why describe it as a land of "milk and honey", instead of being a land of more expensive or nutritious foodstuffs? And as Muhammad Ali mentions, milk and honey can cause gastric upsets in some people.
2 Answers 2021-01-11
How would I go about applying for a house if they were provided? Was it common to sell your house and upgrade or did most people live in the one house for their whole lives?
1 Answers 2021-01-11
How do we know what hieroglyphs sound like without having any reference? Was there a "Rosetta Stone" found for it? For instance how do we know about Ra or Amenhotep?
1 Answers 2021-01-11
I’d like to think I have a decent understanding of the time period but I want to go deeper. Any more specific/advanced book recommendations would be appreciated. I can read Spanish and Portuguese if that matters.
Thanks so much!
1 Answers 2021-01-11
I have read a few times that due to paying jizyah (a tax) that non-Muslims did not have to fight in wars. But was there still a significant number of Christians, Jews etc. who decided to fight in Muslim armies voluntarily? I reference Al-Andalus in particular because the Iberian peninsula was a quite religiously diverse region - though with ups and downs in that regard.
1 Answers 2021-01-11
Just what it says. I've always assumed it was the Bible and Communist manifesto but I realized I don't actually have a clue.
1 Answers 2021-01-11
Hello, I've wondered how the Turks reacted to the Crusaders sacking Constantinople? Where they delighted by the news the enemy they've been fighting was crippled or did they react another way?
1 Answers 2021-01-11
Further, is the social movement Orwell is describing related to the 60s on-wards movement? And, where did it originate from?
1 Answers 2021-01-11
If you'd look at the countries in the 17th and even early 18th centuries by various metrics, the Dutch were very clearly ahead. In terms of GDP per capita, urbanization, agricultural productivity, and financial sophistication. So how did the Netherlands fall behind and even lag behind much of Europe when it came to industrialization?
1 Answers 2021-01-11
I’m currently studying WWII in eastern europe, and it’s an aspect I don’t get. Hitler prepared the minds for genocide through propaganda and extreme brutalisation of society and starting the genocide with the einsatzgruppen (shooting the Jewish people “in the open”). However, the Wannsee conference was secret, gas chambers were hidden and called crematoriums as to not arouse suspicion. So why did they try to hide the actual gas chambers if they never try to hide their goal?
Maybe I’m surprised as it clashes with the mainstream vision we have today of the german people being complicit with many not believing they weren’t aware of it.
1 Answers 2021-01-11
It seems to me that the spanish people fighting among themselves would be the perfect opportunity for the folks at Spanish Morocco or Spanish Sahara to attempt a movement for independence. So did they try anything like it or just kept to themselves while Spain fought itself?
1 Answers 2021-01-10