Hi friends, I'ma get right to the point. I've decided to dedicate some time to studying Korea during the Joseon Dynasty(ideally, the closest to the year 1500, and 1510 I could). I'm particularly interested in Warrior elites, and the specific titles of generals, common soldiers, etc. If you have any info you can give me, with sources, I'd be most appreciative, thank you!

During the II-VI centuries AD, in Europe several groups of the same ethnicity, language and customs, possibly scattered tribes in origin, began uniting in a greater entity speculated to have spanned from a loose confederation of tribes (possibly the Langobards), to a more organized polity (perhaps the Franks).

Such an occassion seems to have brought also a reinvention (or creation) of a communal identity, at times calcified with the adoption of a new name altogether. The aforementioned Franks appear to have used such a name, created from a word probably linked to the concept of freedom, as proposed by Edward Gibbons. Such theory seems to explain the usage of the word in cases where liberty is involved, such as the term for a safe harbour (in Italian we say "porto franco", lit. "Frank harbour", a safe place). Similarly, some Italian toponyms add tbe term "Frank" to a word to indicate the freedom from obligations (i. e. "Villafranca" could be roughly translated into "Freestead").
In the case of the Langobards, they seem to thave travelled, and perhaps organized their political life, based on groupings known as farae, a poorly understood concept ranging from enlarged family units to a more ethnically based distinction within the greater amalgamation of people calling themselves Langobards. This name too survives to this day in some places in Italy, such as "Fara in Sabina", in nowdays Lazio, translating in to "the Fara in Sabina", with Sabina being an old historical region.

Such phenomenon is known as "ethnogenesis" and, with this premise being made, I wonder: is there any evidence or hypothesis of a similar phenomenon for the Native populations of North America?

Although this is applying some modern concepts of nationalism and ideologies to the ancient times but still . The new union referendum in the ussr got 73% of the population in favour of it for various political economic and social reasons so within the ussr lots of people still wanted to stay unified was there a similar thing in the Roman empire where despite being subjugated people the people still enjoyed being part of the Roman empire

Hi there,

history grad student here. I am currently writing a chapter on the early history of an international organisation and am encountering a problem I have thought about often before: How do historians deal with contradictory evidence, i.e. of different historical sources on the same events make contradictory statements?

In general, I do know what to do of course: Discuss it in the main text or a footnote and explain your reasoning for trusting one source over the other.

However, with my current chapter, there are quite a few minor facts about that organisation's early history that aren't really consequential for the argument I am making, but nevertheless are reflected differently in different sources (e.g. whether it was June or July 1925 when the organisation was first established). Now do I have to specifically discuss each of these small detailed differences in the sources in the text or footnotes? Or is this not necessary and in these small cases historians are just expected to use their own judgement without having to explain each time? I am asking as it seems at the moment that this really blows up my footnotes and at times derails the main narrative I am trying to construct.

Thanks!

[cross-post from /askacademia]

Was it due to natural causes (ie. drought)? Was it due to bad policies? Was it an intentional genocide? A mix?

I see lots of claims about what happened from different people on the internet (Most commonly tankies), but I was wondering what the general consensus is among actual historians.

If there isn't a general consensus, and it's still quite divisive among historians, please tell me so.

Wouldn't it have been easier just to shoot someone dead, then to get some heavy machine with a huge heavy glass blade like the guillotine? Louis XVI could have easily been executed by a shot to the head, which I assume may have been easier than loading the guillotine up and following all of the steps to use it.

I know the phrase "banana republic" came to refer to countries in Central & South America and the Caribbean, because of the huge fruit interests there - but how did the actual banana get there? Was there an indigenous banana species when the European invaders arrived, or was it introduced as part of the Columbian Exchange or...what? If it isn't native, do we know how the indigenous peoples reacted to the banana?

I presuppose there are opnions on all sides of this, but since historians can generally use imagery, art, and artifacts to tell history - it seems that history is not limited to the written word, right? How far does it go?

So the Basques were only converted to Catholicism in around 1600, but Europeans have had contact with the new world for a century by that time - with Basques playing a major role in contact with the Americas. Was there any evidence of Basque paganism being practiced in the Americas, or possibly Basque pagan beliefs being passed on to or adopted by Native Americans?

Today we went to an older place in town (in South Carolina) that had 3 bathrooms all side by side. They were labeled 2 for men and 1 for women. So my gf and I just thought it seemed strange. So we came up with one possible reason could be that it may have been built during the Jim Crow era, meaning it may have been designed with 2 for whites (male & female) and one for black that was possibly for male and female.

This could be a completely asinine hypothesis, but it did get me thinking if the designers of buildings during that time may have assumed that segregation would always be a way if life.

Just curious. Thanks.

How could anyone in Germany believe the information the government was telling them when the second highest ranking official was the “Minister of Propaganda”?

Why wasn’t his title less obvious like “ Minister of Communications or Information ?

Ive been debating a lot with my friends and some were saying shinobis were samurais etc samurais are a class and shinobis/ninjas are occupations etc. Is there any expert in regard to feudal japan relating to samurais ninjas etc overthrow of govt etc all of it?

While the death camps officially began operation in 1941 in Nazi Germany; Jews, gay people, dissidents, religious minorities, and many others faced discrimination, incarceration, and executions since nearly the beginning of the regime.

So when we hear the death toll of the Holocaust at 11 million, is that from the entirety of the Nazi regime from 1933-1945, or is it only from the opening of the extermination camps in 1941 onwards? If the 11 million figure is only from 1941 onwards, have any official counts been made from pre-war, pre-extermination camp era who were killed before the Holocaust was officially implemented?

Thanks for any insight.

Most countries that still have nobilities, like Spain or the UK, have other nobles besides the royal family, like Dukes, Barons and so on, and often those people still have the large properties of their ancestors or even limited roles in government

However when I googled the descendants of similar people in Japan I found that while most of them are rich or famous (one was a olympic skater) none of them are still considered nobility, legally or culturally

It seems that at some point the Japanese nobility was pretty much dismantled, although apparently those people remained wealthy and influential

When did this change happen?, how did this happened?, and the thing that I wonder the most is: how did these people, who probably have power, wealth and influence, allowed this change this happen?

I found an old English recipe but I cannot understand the wording. Can someone please translate it to modern English? I really wanna try making it. Thanks so much!

Take halfe a pound of fine Wheat flower, an ounce of powder of Pomecittrons, an ounce of powder of Lemonds, a quarter of an ounce of fine cersed Ginger, the weight of sixe pence of the finest Basill, Marioram beaten into powder, make all this into a perfect Paste as stiffe as for Manchet, with a little Ipocras made warme, the yolks of three or foure new laid Egges, a sawcer full of sweet Creame, a piece of sweet Butter as much as an Egge, and then rowle it in long rowles, and tie them in some pretie fashion like Sumbals, then throw them into seething water, and they will presently fall downe to the bottome, watch them, and so soone as you see them rise to the top of the water, take them vp presently with a scummer, and bake them vpon sheetes of white paper, and when they be three or foure dayes old, throw them into boiling Sugar of a Candie height; then take them vp, and drie them vpon leaues made of Basket-makers twigges in a warme Ouen.

title