I realize that small parts of the poor urban population of Rome received olive oil as part of the Cura Annonae Grain Dole for roughly 250 years. But beyond this, it seems olives and olive oil were a major staple of the ancient Roman diet, even for those who were not well off. Is this correct? If so, why were they so affordable for average people? Were the economics of raising olives different then?

The Europeans had immunities to the "typical" diseases like smallpox, bubonic plague, etc. But if there were diseases in America did they get sick and incredibly ill from them? I've heard stories of Europeans getting sick with diseases but I always assumed it was from the sea, salmonella, etc.

I knew of the cod war but I looked up who won today out of curiosity, but Iceland won? How? I looked up the number of casualties, it was only one, and Iceland has no military, how did they win? It obviously wasn’t militaristic, so how did they settle the dispute.

Or was there less concern about the rise of the United States due to them being primarily a European culture and not necessarily a revisionist power until after World War 2 (and by then it was presumably too late for anyone to do anything about it).

I'd also be interested in hearing if there was a contrast to the perspective of the rise of Japan which was also somewhat contemporary to the rise of the United States.

I've been on a reading spray about the middle ages, more specifically the early middle ages.

I keep seeing references to popes or bishops of Rome struggling with Holy Roman Emperors for temporal powers and the control of Rome.

I know the brief of Canossa in 1076, I know that most of Italy left the Holy Roman Empire a few centuries later.

But it seems to be something that has older roots and a long tail after the 11th century. I'd like to better understand that rivalry, its source, its main actors and its main up and downs.

I know not all danes/norse were vikings (vikingr?) and a lot were just traders and farmers but raids definitely happened… how bad were they exactly? I’m guessing the raids were exaggerated by english sources but they had to be at least be somewhat brutal (considering norse mythology and seers) I’ve been into viking era england as of late from the last kingdom and ac valhalla so I was curious about this

I imagine that the answers to these questions might differ significantly depending on the specific city and time period, so even a snapshot of one place in a particular time would be great. And if y'all have any suggestions for further reading on the subject that is somewhat approachable for non-academic, I would really appreciate it as well. Thanks in advance!

Hi /r/askhistorians!

I'm a Jewish Israeli, and a lot of times in movies or on the internet when people cite from the bible (what christians refer to as the 'old' testament), I'm completely confused by the names they throw out, as they don't correspond to the hebrew names.

I completely understand why "Beresheet" (Genesis) was translated to Genesis - it's the same meaning, only in a different language. However, "Shemot" (Names) was translated to Exodus, and "Vayikra" (And he Called) was translated to Leviticus. Bamidbar (In the desert) was translated to Numbers, et cetera.

I find some of these changes to be confusing - who are these changes attributed to, and why? Do the changed English names correspond to the names in Greek and Latin, or is it unique to the English versions?

EDIT To further clarify my question - I understand why Exodus (for example) can be a thematically fitting name; My question is not where such a name comes from, but rather, why and who decided that the original names shouldn't be kept as-is or directly translated

I've just finished and enjoyed Charles Manns 1491 and 1493 and enjoyed the deconstruction of many false conceptions about the Americas in poplar thought. Recently I've also become more interested in European miedival history, especially because there seems to be an astounding amount of misconceptions about those times aswell. From the myths about the dark ages, to the misconceptions about feudalism, hygiene, gender and day-today life.

Do you have any recomendations for books about the Middle Ages? I know they span 1000 years and an entire continent, so I'm not just looking for one single book, just some good books to start. They also be more specific at times, for example I'm interested in Germaica slavica and that whole story.

So let me preface this question with I understand that the debate is whether it was Hitler's intention or whether it was the structure of the Nazi party which led to the Holocaust.

So why is it important to know if it was structure of the Nazi party or intention of Hitler in the broader sense?

Does this this build on to further analysis or feed into other areas of potential research?

I did history at college and I either missed the lecture or it was not discussed as to why the debate is important itself.

Thanks

I was wondering how female SOE agents dealt with needing to blend in with the locals after landing in Nazi-occupied territory? A dress and women's shoes wouldn't work for parachuting, so did they wear a flight suit with the dress wadded up underneath and boots, take off the suit and change to women's shoes when they got on the ground? Or did they bring civilian clothes with them in a bag and change everything when they got on the ground? How did they get rid of the flight suit, boots and parachute, if they had all of those? Could they bring a bag of clothes with them?

I’m rewatching GoT and a wine merchant mentions letting a particular wine breathe. Have there always been people with vocal opinions about what makes ‘good’ wine?

I am currently reading Parshall and Tully's "Shattered Sword: The Untold Story of the Battle of Midway" and it goes into great detail into the strategic planing process that occurred between Yamamoto's Combined Fleet Staff and the Japanese Naval General Staff as they were deciding what the military's next steps should be after a staggeringly successful first phase of operations. Parshall and Tully go into this detail because they make a key claim in their book that this planning process was dysfunctional and played a role in the poor operational decisions made for Midway. However, I have never seen a similar analysis done for the U.S. side of the war. Even the books about battles like Coral Sea and Midway, generally have the U.S. in a reactive position, intercepting communications and figuring out Japanese intentions followed by successful reactions. Even one we get to Guadalcanal, the operation is framed as a unilateral concoction of Ernst King which was forced upon Nimitz, Ghormley and subordinate commanders.

With that in mind, I had a set of questions:

1. What was the post-Pearl Harbor U.S. strategic plan for the prosecution of the Pacific War? Of particular interest is the post-Midway U.S. assessment and plan, given that this battle allowed the U.S. to begin mounting offensives in a way that was not possible before.
2. How did the U.S. strategy change given the shift from reliance on Battleships => Carriers? Prior to the war, the U.S. strategic plan was "Plan Orange", which called for a decisive battle to be fought in the pacific using battleships. How did that plan change as a result of the battleships being at the bottom of Pearl Harbor?
3. By what process did U.S. planners arrive at their chosen conclusion? What were the alternatives proposed by different factions? Why did the ultimately successful faction prevail?
4. Are there any good resources on this topic?

Thanks in advance!

I love watching videos about history but I find reading about it to be incredibly taxing. some books I can finish very fast while others I find that I constantly reread stuff to the point where I am forgetting things that came before. should I just put it at a faster speed and absorb things passively?

I am currently reading the Templars by Dan Jones. It is very interesting but there is so much to keep track of. Names of cities, people, battles, and kings. it is really complicated. should I even try to analyze it or should I just get through it and if I want to know more about a subject just read another book on the same topic?

I just love history and I want to find a way to learn more through audiobooks. I just feel ashamed that I didn't get everything because somebody spent time and effort writing it only for some teenagers to get confused because they have a low attention span.

Anyways please offer advice because I am bewildered and want to finish the Templars. It has been a month and I have 8 hours left. Reading should be an enjoyable pastime and not some overcomplicated mental gymnastic feat. I can only read it every other day because I am so stressed about what to do.