The quote, which I'll transcribe because it's really quite funny, goes as follows [question at the bottom]: "How this happened to be the case in Germany [Kant's abstention from coffee], Mr. Wasianski [another biographer] has not explained. Perhaps the English merchants at Konigsberg, being amongst Kant's oldest and most intimate friends, had early familiarised him with the practice of drinking tea, and with other English tastes. . . A far better reason for abstaining from coffee, than any visionary fancies about its insalubrity, rests in England upon the villanous mode of its preparation. In respect to cookery, and every conceivable culinary process, the English (and in exaggerated degree the Scotch) are the most uncultured of the human race. It was an old saying of a sarcastic Frenchman on visiting that barbarous city of London (foremost upon earth for many great qualities, but the most barbarous upon earth (except Edinburgh and Glasgow) for culinary arts)--"Behold!" said the Frenchman, 'A land where they have sixty religions' (alluding to the numerous subdivisions of Protestant dissent), 'and only one sauce.'"

Obviously Britain has never been known for their culinary prowess, but do we know what methods of coffee preparation they may have brought to Germany around the end of the 18th century?

When I was in high school, twenty years ago, the Finnish participation in Barbarossa was painted in a very opportunistic, non-judgmental light. I remember my teacher stating that only six Jews were ever deported from Finland to Germany during the war. I haven't been able to find a source for it, but the point was to say that the army only took part to regain the losses from the Winter war and wasn't interested in Nazi ideology.

Only in recent years has there been more research and discussion of the nastier side of the Finnish front. I suppose much of it was known, it was just not appropriate to publicly talk about it. I have been wondering, just how much were things like the Einsatzgruppen a matter of public knowledge for other soldiers.

Hello. I was recently listening to Tacituses book "On Germania" and he made a mention to something odd, and I really want to know more. I don't have a direct quote but I have a good memory of what he said. He starts by mentioning how the Germans worshipped Mercury (Oden, but as the Romans interpreted him) and mentioned they also worship Mars and Hercules (I don't remember what gods these were connected too) he mentions these fairly commonly. But then he mentions Isis. What made this mention even weirder is that he very specifically mentions not knowing how this God made it up to Germany from Egypt.

So that left me wondering: Do we have any other references to this German Isis cult? Is there any evidence of its existence? If not, what God were the Romans connecting to Isis?

Thanks in advance

I’m aware that relationships between the two Christian worlds were a little frosty (to say the least) after the Fourth Crusade but were the Muslim incursions not seen as a greater threat? I know Venetians and Genoese fought for the city and others sent supplies but I’m surprised the pope didn’t organise some sort of army

When I first learned about WWI I was given the impression that there wasn't any direct connection between the Black Hand and the Serbian government, and that if there was one it was tenuous in terms of how strongly it was supported and as to who was aware of the support. But now I constantly hear people, both jokingly and seriously, drawing a very direct connection between the Black Hand and the Serbian government, with plenty of people claiming "Serbia directly started WWI," and I don't know if people are simply oversimplifying history, if new information has come out, or if I or those people making such claims are just wrong. Did the Serbian government fully condone and support the Black Hand and by proxy their efforts to assassinate the Archduke?

I have been wanting to learn more about a few topics (namely the troubles, maoist china, and the october revolution) but I always end up not buying any books I see because I am afraid of buying a book that is actually inaccurate or is biased in their telling of history.

so are there any good ways to figure out if a book is accurate and useful without having to read the book or have prior knowledge of the subject?

I read that public opinion turned in their favor during their trail for the assassination of the Prime Minister (including some individuals sending their own severed fingers as a sign of support) and that they received a “light” sentence.

How light was their sentence?

When did they get out of prison?

What happened to them once they got out?

Edit: May 15 Incident (not 13), sorry!

I was always under the impression that the answer was no, but Rufus Fears refers to it as a normal part of becoming a province, and I found multiple Catholic references to a historic census.

Apparently, Queen Victoria tried really hard to get her husband, Albert, to be given the title of King. However, it was refused and he was left with the title of Prince. Why was Prince Albert (and by extension, Prince Philip) denied the title of King whilst the wives of male monarchs were referred to as Queen?

In the mid-1950s NATO chose .308 Winchester (7.62x51mm) as the standard rifle cartridge. Up to that point the US military had been using 30-06 as the standard cartridge, presumably had huge stocks of it and would continue to use 30-06 for decades, to the present day really, as a machine gun cartridge in the BAR, M1917 and M1919. I just don't understand why a military would go through the logistical hassle of replacing their main cartridge with another that was the same caliber, has an equal amount of felt recoil, had slightly worse terminal ballistics and doesn't confer any benefit to a soldier in terms of being smaller or lighter so that more ammo can be carried/a soldier has to carry around less weight. Nobody in NATO was using .308 as their standard beforehand, and the same points one can make comparing 30-06 to .308 can also be made for .303 British and 8mm Mauser. So, is there a reason why NATO chose an entirely new cartridge to make standard instead of any one of those that were already in service by one of the member states?

I've seen a video about a specific signature on top of the Great Pyramid but am curious about others. Photos don't show up close or translate what I can't see. Since we are here, the capstones have plenty of theories about them. Thank you Google dosen't have anything on the inscriptions.

First up I'm not 100% sure on how the 20year rule works, so if I'm not allowed to ask this for another 8 months, I'll gladly come back in October or so.

So here is the question:

How and when did the 9/11 conspiracies start? Was it close to immediate, or did it only start once the shock was over? How did they spread early on, was it always in internet phenomenon? Where did they come from?

I know this is a weird question to ask a historian, but I think the subject matter of how an idea developed is history?

Thanks a ton for taking your time to read (and respond to) questions here. This place is awesome

I mean wasn’t he born in the Austro-Hungarian Empire? He only enlisted for the Germans after he couldn’t get into the AH military. What caused him to be so nationalistic about a country he wasn’t even from?

My understanding is the Angles (along with Saxons and Jutes etc) largely vacated their lands in what is now Denmark. Five hundred years later the Danes started raiding and eventually establishing Danelaw in Britain. Were the invading Danes 'simply' the descendants of the remaining Germanic tribes of the area? Or was Denmark repopulated by immigration after the Angles vacated?

Hello, here is the scoop.

I am a writer working on a project but I need to get some history answers as part of the prewriting. For what I am making, I need to understand factionalism and infighting within the Nazi Party. I have a surface understanding, like how towards the end of the war Hitler hated Gorring and Himmler. I also know Himmler interfered with Speer's factories which caused them to be enemies. Also obviously some people like Stauffenberg and Rommel wanted Hitler dead.

Specifically, I am looking at infighting from three angles: ideology differences/level of devotion to the party, not liking X personally, and how free thinking vs being a yes man to Hitler a member was.

If someone could clarify who had clout in the party that would help. Were there cliques or individual squabbling? Also, including sources is encouraged

Should I major in history? Ok so, I am a Junior in high school and wanna major in history and become a lawyer. I absolutely love history, all the details and intricate facts and the overall fascination it brings me. However, I am well aware of how History careers aren't the best well-paying or don't have much room for advancement. I was going to get my Bachelor's in History, maybe minor in Business and go to law school. It would be an enjoyabke career for me, but not something I'm extremely passionate about. I want a career with a good salary, security, and room for advancement. If there is any such career in History besides a lawyer I could pursue, please tell me. I especially love anything to do with Ancient Egypt, Ancient Rome, the Victorian Era, the Stuarts, and the Renaissance. Thanks!

Hi all,

I'm trying to get a hold of books that have extensive details about each president and their long-term impacts on the direction of U.S. history, both good and bad. I'm looking for real deep dives here; books that cover policy towards Indigenous people, foreign policy, economic policy, etc.

Additionally, details that cover non-presidential aspects are fine too, like William Henry Harrison's time as a general in the War of 1812 or William H. Taft's time as a Supreme Court justice. I guess I'm afraid to ask for biographies because for whatever reason I worry about biographies being hagiographies.

I have read Charles Mann's 1492 and would like a more specific reading about either Aztecs, Mayans or Incas. I would like books before the conquests and end of their empires as their are plenty of books on that. Would appreciate a good book recommendation about any of the major Pre Columbian empires.

After the Trojan war, King Menelaus retrieves Helen and returns to Sparta. In the Odyssey, we see the happily-reconciled couple together. During a feast, Helen regales attendees with stories of her time in Troy (where she was with Paris). You might imagine it would be an embarrassment to Menelaus to have her indiscretions brought up publically.

She throws this line in at the end of her story:

I wished that Aphrodite had not made me

go crazy, when she took me from my country,

and made me leave my daughter and the bed

I shared with my fine, handsome, clever husband.”

And Menelaus said,

“Yes, wife, quite right.

So first off, the whole scene seems off to a modern audience. We don't buy that Helen can just blame divine madness for her affair, or that Menelaus would accept this explanation, or that he would be ok with having the story aired publically.

So has the story always been hard to swallow, or were the moral stances of Homer's audience, and their beliefs about the gods, so different that it made sense when it was created?

Would a Mycenean Greek audience buy the idea that Helen was just divinely inspired to have an affair because they considered this sort of thing to happen all the time? Would they buy that Menelaus would just let her off the hook and accept this answer? How "divinely inspired" did they think human action got?

As far as I know, you are taught to get on horse from the left side. This comes from a time when people used to wear swords. Since most were right handed, they'd wear it on the left side. So to avoid problems, they would jump on the horse from the left side, moving their right leg over it's back.

But Romans did wear their swords on the right side, so they would be able to grab them without their shields interfering.

So, it's obvious to me that they would get on the horse from the right side, contrary to what most others would do. But I wasn't able to find anything about it. Am I correct? Or am I missing something?