As a more serious large subreddit it takes a lot of work to maintain /r/history. This also means that we are always looking to add a few more mods to the /r/history team. So we always have a link in our sidebar to the moderator application page so people that are interested in becoming a mod can apply there. However we also like to every once in a while draw a bit more attention to this process, which is why we made this post. This post gives the same information as on the linked wiki page, but it also allows you to ask questions about being a mod.
Here is a quick overview of the general things we are looking for:
Some of the responsibilities include:
If you have no idea how moderating works on reddit and want to check out more about that first you can have a look at this guide.
There is no monetary reward as it is all volunteer work. However you do get a better subreddit in return and a very friendly team work with. All of the mods are here because they love history and as such they want this subreddit to succeed in focusing on history and the discussion surrounding it. It is one of the reasons we always try to attract new moderators from within the /r/history community.
You can do so through this link, we will ask a few questions we will use in the application process. Take the time to answer them. As rule of thumb if all your answers are one line long it is very unlikely that you'll be considered.
We are always looking for new moderators so there is no end date as it is an ongoing process.
The /r/history moderating team.
Feel free to post your question below and we'll answer it.
I recently went to see the live Kynren show (Look it up it was amazing! :) ) which is a open air show that tells the story of British History starting from Boudica up until World War 2 and also includes a little bit of Myth and legend in there as well.
I was thoroughly impressed and it got me thinking that surely there is something predating Boudica. I'm struggling to find any resources on the subject.
I'm guessing because they were mostly tribes and were less advanced than the Romans that there history wasn't recorded (accurately at least) and the Romans wiped the slate clean once they conquered Britain.
Does anyone know of any good resources or can explain a rough guide to any key factions/civilisations/events/periods/facts etc that predate Boudica around Britain.
Thanks for your time!
Some time ago, /u/venuswasaflytrap started prodding me to write up something on the history of fencing for the Wiki, and it has been a "I'll definitely get to that... soon" item on my to do-list for some time now. But hey, a boring lunch-break and a free evening can do wonders! To be sure, this is not an expansive history of the sport across all countries, and neither is it one that looks at early schools of fencing nor more recent developments. Rather it is focused very specifically on the span of several decades in which fencing took shape as an actual, modern sport, a transition that while not solely so, was in large part indebted to the French. While the duel survived into the late 19th century in a number of countries, few saw it so broadly practiced and so intertwined with ideas of masculinity as the French of the Third Republic, and it was there that fencing as its own sport truly began to form and define itself.
1871, for perhaps obvious reasons, was quite a low-point for France, and the newly born Third Republic. The recent defeat at the hands of Prussia and her allies might have had something to do with that. As is common in the face of defeat, attempts were made to salvage and salve the wounded pride of French manhood, crying out that the common French soldier had fought his bravest and shown honor on the battlefield, an effort made in vain under the poor quality of leadership and betrayal. The ashes of the Second Empire from which the Third Republic sprung sought, in large part, to revitalize the spirit of French honor, and to place at the forefront the image of the Republican man, a new bourgeois aristocracy of universal (male) suffrage and equality (which still, of course, excluded the uncouth lower-classes). An honorable man was brave, an honorable man was honest, an honorable man did not back down from a fight. The Republican man, as a man of honor, needed to be able to defend that honor. Ernest LeGouve summarize the sentiment in 1872:
I would like our democracy to remain aristocratic in its manners and its sentiments, and nothing can achieve that end more effectively than familiarity with the sword.
The duel, or at least ones potential to fight one, quickly came to be intimately intertwined with public life for French men of any standing. Politicians were routinely expected to put steel behind their words spoken in the Chamber of Deputies, while journalists would expect to occasionally be called to account for what they printed on the page. While the rare duel was fought with pistols - ironically considered the most harmless form of the affair, both parties routinely shooting far wide, assuming the seconds had even loaded them with a real bullet instead of wax or simply powder - it was the épée de combat that any self-respecting Frenchman would need to familiarize himself with in anticipation of the fight. And to be sure, many men did fight them, and by the hundreds, but many more prepared for the duel that never came.
While fencing - that is to say, swordplay for either practice or sport - has existed in some form or other essentially as long as the sword itself has, in few places can it be seen as becoming such an integral part of how manhood itself was defined - at least independent of the duel - than in France. While not entirely divorced from its more violent counterpart, which absolutely must be credited with its rise, fencing as sport and recreation became one of the most popular pastimes for the French bourgeois. While the épée was the weapon of the duel, and many men who anticipated finding themselves needing the knowledge would practice with the heavier weapon and its more deliberate style, the foil, a lighter weapon historically seen as a training blade, was the one of choice for most men frequenting the salle d'armes, or fencing hall, in their evenings. While hardly a new innovation at the dawn of the Third Republic, Paris alone could boast of 100 Maître d’Armes in 1890, all graduated from the Military Academy at Joinville-les-Ponts, founded in 1872, whereas there had been only 35 in the country in 1870, and by that point too any town or city worth its salt soon was hosting a salle. By simple numbers, fencing was not the most popular sport in France, but few had nearly so much meaning, or institutional support.
In the late 19th century, the salle was one of the most fashionable places to be seen, and large businesses even began to maintain private ones for the use by their employees. Far from being a simple training for the duel, advocates saw countless good coming the embracing of the sport. It wasn't simply an activity to stay fit and active, although that in of itself was a selling point, but it was, as LeGouve wrote, a way to mold "virile hearts and vigorous bodies" from the newest generation of French manhood. Learning to fence was seen as part of the civilizing process, breeding respect between all men who practiced the art. It reinforced the equality of honor between all the participants, and helped to raise up and instill those values in newcomers to the scene. The rules of respect and politeness that continue to mark the rules of modern fencing were in large part formed and codified in these French salles during the the early Third Republic, with all men expected to follow them - and at least a few duels resulting when they weren't!
Of course, the irony of all this sentiment of equality and brotherhood is that soon enough, many of the salles themselves came to be the exclusive domains of the connected and powerful. While there was always a hall available for the newly risen bourgeois looking to break into society, the best salles, houses in palatial quarters, with spas and lounges for the membership, were quote limited, with closely restricted memberships voted upon by the existing men and quite class conscious at that. And although some certainty felt that such opulent surroundings were unsuited to these temples of sport and vigor, all generally felt some affinity and brotherhood in their chosen activity. They were all men of the sword, after all.
The process of divorcing itself from the duel was hardly overnight, and again, it must be said that not only did many a fencer consider the possibility - however remote - of their needing to put practice to the test, but duels from insults in the club were not unknown, and more than a few maître d’armes of a salle would provoke a duel with one of his compatriots, hoping to demonstrate his skill and drum up business, perhaps. But as can be expected with many an activity that gives the option of winner and loser, the continued sportification of fencing was all but unstoppable, and by the final decade of the 19th century, it truly can be said to have come into its own. Whereas in the 'assaults' of earlier decades, scores were not kept, touches were always acknowledged, and it was simply a meeting of equals for a demonstration and mutual acknowledgement of their masculinity, it is at this point where this begins to fall to the wayside.
A demonstration match by masters at Cercle de la Rue Taitbout, one of the poshest salles in Paris. Lucien Merignac, left, a leader of the 'French' school, and Cavairere Pini, right, one of the 'Italian' masters, c. 1905
Sport competitions, with the keeping of score, performed for audiences, all became more common. Winners and losers were declared at the end of the bout. And while it remained in the rules for decades longer, the fact that fencers could not be counted on to always declare 'touché!' meant the introduction of judges to ensure fair play was respected. A degree of artistry would remain part of the rules, but this itself came to be quantified, for some time a touch scored 'in style' being worth more than one scored in an ugly manner. It also perhaps with some irony that observers of the time noted that the less tied to dueling the sport became, the greater in popularity the épée became as a sporting style. Lacking the artistry of foil, even in the 1870s it was seen by many as inappropriate for mere play - a "prostitution" of the art of fencing - and its practice intended mainly for those anticipating the duel. But by the turn of the century, such views had fallen to the wayside, and with not quite the popularity of the foil, it nevertheless had become an acceptable sporting choice as well.
The increasing involvement of women, too, speaks to the sportification, with more and more adventerous young ladies taking up the sport, following the argument of Alexandre Bergès 1896 "L'Escrime er la femme", or a 1898 feminist writer in La Fronde that:
fencing is a true art that requires calculation, precision and finesse rather than strength: Are these not the qualities that come most naturally to woman? And if she does not possess them, can she not easily acquire them?
La Fronde put their money where their mouth was too, director Marguerite Durand installing a women-only gym in the office, which included a fencing piste. Whether women could duel of course was another matter, that facet of honor being generally seen as a much more male preserve but even then at least a few agreed with the argument of the fencing master M. Bouzier-Dorcières who noted that:
[I]f we recognize that at the dawn of a new century, a feminist effort has formidably manifested itself in all countries, why do you want to deny a woman ... the right to avenge herself an offense that has been perpetrated against her.
This debate, of course, was far less settled, but while their right to duel was not generally acknowledged - a factor reflected in the restricting of women to foil, a training weapon, and excluded from épée, the sword of the duel - by the turn of the century fencing was an acceptable sport for the modern lady, a sport where success was not reliant on physical strength, but finesse and demeanor.
Again, while the duel could not be entirely separated, and even entered into discussions about women's involvement - fencing would continue to co-exist with the duel for decades longer, the duel in France only truly falling into decline after World War I - fencing was an established sport by the turn of the century. The French were not the lone practitioners of fencing, but certainly the most prominent, and at the forefront of its developments. Many of the manuals that became available in countries with less of a native tradition, such as the United States were at best heavily influenced, if not simply translations, of the French schools and style, and many a fencing hall sought to find themselves a French master of arms to lead.
I would take pause here of course, to mention the counter-arguments, as not all see the immediate acceptance of the duel as a symbol of Republican strength, and fencing as a direct outgrowth, and in truth it would be wrong to give the impression of such clarity. Some certainly saw the duel in the period not as an assertion of Republican values, but a continuation of earlier aristocratic privilege, a resistance to the culture of the Republic, although certainly still an attempt to revitalize masculinity for the defeated. For them, at least, the sportification of fencing was itself the "Republicanization" of the 'sword', the true point where this meeting of manhood fell to the wayside, the nobility of it debassed, and "[p]oints and prize money replac[ing] blood and honor". For such purists - the same decrying especially the épée's sporting usage - the drive to win was simply incompatible with earlier visions of the 'art of fence'. In this light too, it also must be said that the adoption of the duel in Republican spirit was, at least in part, an aping of that privilege, dating back a century to the time of the Revolution, part of a larger picture of the "aristocratization of the bourgeoisie" through the century, but also intertwined with the "bourgeoisification of the aristocracy".
An aristocrat himself, the Baron de Coubertin, the father of the Modern Olympics, was a dedicated fencer too, not to mention a product of the post-1871 generation, coming of age in the wake of defeat. His patronage of the sport helped at least in part its inclusion as an event, and in any event, it was French influenced rules used when fencing was included as one of the events of the inaugural modern Olympic Games in 1896, being contested for both foil and sabre, as well as a 'masters' event, the lone professionals of the first games. Épée - or 'Dueling Sword' as the event was often referred to still in that time - was planned, but when the foil event took too long, it was postponed and in the end never staged. It would have to wait till 1900 for its Olympic debut.
In point of fact, the foil was entirely French affair as far as the international crowd went, bolstered by a large contingent of Greeks, and while the French took first and second the amateur event, it was likely with some chagrin that the Greek fencing master won the professional event, besting his French - and only - rival (Sport sabre had considerably less foothold in France, seen more as a military weapon still, and no Frenchmen competed in that event). In 1900, the French would do even better, but perhaps related to the fact that 211 of the 258 fencers at the Paris games were locals, still not enough to even get bronze in sabre though! French dominance would finally be broken at the 1904 games in St. Louis, although that in turn due to the fact none attended - exclusively a German, Cuban, and American affair. But even if they had not attended, there was few who doubted in that time that France was the true leader of the sport.
It would still takes time for the sport to gain uniformity, various countries following essentially their own ruleset, and several international conferences seeing little lasting result. Italy, nearly as attached to their more dueling influenced style as the French to theirs, undoubtedly put up the greatest resistance to French dominance of the 'meta' game, leading to more than a few disagreements and boycotts of events. It all came to a head at the 1912 Games, where the French desired foil target to include the upper arm and withdrew when the Italians ensured this wouldn't happen, while the Italians in turn skipped épée when their desired length for the blade was not adopted. Things simple needed to be settled, and whatever Italian disagreement, the next year it would nevertheless be the French style predominantly followed for foil and épée (the Italo-Hungarian style and rules for sabre won out) following the formation of the Fédération Internationale d'Escrime in 1913, not that disagreements didn't continue for decades longer. Although French domination of the sport would fall to the wayside in time, tradition still dictates French as the 'language of fencing' internationally, an indelible mark of the sports origins and youth.
None of this is to undercut the contributions of other countries to the origins and early growth of the sport, of course. The development of sabre play, for instance, saw comparatively little impact from the French in the period who favored a much heavier blade ill-suited to development of the sport and destined to keep it unpopular for play. Late 19th to early 20th century sabre play instead owes much to the Italians and Hungarians, first among others who also bear mentioning like Poland and Austria. Nor should this even be taken to imply that the French alone were responsible for foil and épée, an affront the Italians, at the very least, would take personally. While they failed to find themselves in the drivers seat of developments in the early 20th century, they had their own bold style (generally seen as more embracing of the connection to the duel, as well) that would endure well past the adoption of the FIE rules in 1914, and they would surpass even the French in competitive success for much of the interwar period with it. But neither should any of that diminish the primacy of the French in the development of that period, no single country doing more to mold fencing in its infancy as a modern sport.
Borysiuk, Zbigniew. Modern Sabre Fencing. SKA Swordplay Books, 2009
Cohen, Richard. By the Sword. Random House, 2012
Cropper, Corry. Playing at Monarchy: Sport as Metaphor in Nineteenth-Century France. University of Nebraska Press, 2008
Gaugler, William M. A Dictionary of Universally Used Fencing Terminology. Laurete Press, 1997
Mansker, Andrea. Sex, Honor and Citizenship in Early Third Republic France. Palgrave MacMillan, 2011
Nye, Robert A. "Fencing, the Duel and Republican Manhood in the Third Republic" Journal of Contemporary History. Vol. 25 No. 2/3 1990 365-377
Nye, Robert A. Masculinity and Male Codes of Honor in Modern France. Oxford University Press, 1993
Bisland, Margaret. "Fencing for Women" Outing; Sport, Adventure, Travel, Fiction. Vol. 15, Oct.-Mar. 1889-1890, 341-347
Breck, Edward. "Fencing in America: II" Outing; Sport, Adventure, Travel, Fiction. Vol. 61, 1912-1913 481-489
Breck, Edward. "The Passing of the Sabre in Warfare and Its Rise in the New School of Fencing" Outing; Sport, Adventure, Travel, Fiction. Vol. 41, Oct.-Mar. 1902-1903, 643-646
Schwab, Frederick A. "Fencing in France" Outing; Sport, Adventure, Travel, Fiction. Vol. 46, Apr.-Sept. 1905, 105-110
Van Schaik, Eugene. "A Bout with Foils" Outing; Sport, Adventure, Travel, Fiction. Vol. 11, No. 1, Oct.-Mar. 1887-1888, 3-13
Mallon, Bill. The 1896 Olympic Games: Results for All Competitors in All Events, with Commentary. McFarland & Company, Inc., 2009
Mallon, Bill. The 1900 Olympic Games: Results for All Competitors in All Events, with Commentary. McFarland & Company, Inc., 2009
Mallon, Bill. The 1904 Olympic Games: Results for All Competitors in All Events, with Commentary. McFarland & Company, Inc., 2009
Hey there! I’ve been poking around r/history lately (especially in the silly questions Saturday thread) and noticed some quite interesting things pop up. Things like Beethoven’s “improvisation contest” and the time the Austrian army retreated from itself.
My question is, what are more events like this, small (or large), largely forgotten events in history of the world or America or anything!
The weirder the better.
I just finished reading The Storm Before The Storm (great book), and I guess I just never realized that Sulla, Marius, and then Sulla again had all led armies into Rome. I always thought of Caesar's grand crossing of the Rubicon to be such an epic turning point in the history of rome, but he wasn't even the first to lead an army on Rome.
Is this just a case of "history is written by the victors"/Caesar's name is one of the most famous in history, or is there some part of the story that I'm missing?
Also, for the average citizen of Rome, was this just a normal occurrence now? (althought still scary I'm sure, that's 4 times an army was led into Rome in like 25 years) Or was this still seen as a major event at the time.
Thanks for any help.
There is a reason why the Fourth Crusade is known as the worst crusade because the Byzantine Empire, which paradoxically it was surrounded by enemies from the Arabs and the Muslims, to the Persians, the saracens and even the Normans and the Rus (until they are became their allies and the elite bodyguards of the Emperor), it was one of the most advanced, economically robust and thriving empire with lots of trades between Europe and Asia, massive architectural achievements like the Hogia Sophia and the Theodosian Walls and so many others (which is still very odd on how the Byzantine Empire does not get that much attention on Medieval History).
The attack on Constantinople was probably one of the first big attacks that led to its own slow downfall until it was consumed by the Ottoman Empire and this is what puzzles me.
The First Crusade started as a call for aid from the Byzantine Emperor to Pope Urban II and while almost all Christian nations eventually stopped with their own wars and conflicts between each other and eventually had a common goal to fight against the Muslims to take back Jerusalem (only the First Crusade had the success that they wanted). And in the Fourth Crusade, because the Crusaders were agitated and angry at Alexios because he had a personal vendetta against his own father but was unable to pay the reward that he promised to the Crusaders if they managed to overthrow his father.
If the entire point of the Crusades was the liberate Jerusalem and other previously Christian lands that where under Muslim rule, why did the Crusaders during the Fourth Crusades attack on their own allies whose large attack eventually caused the Byzantine Empire to go into a slow decay of what it once was and eventually annexed by the Ottamans which made the whole fight against the Muslim world even worse.
I tried to post this before but I violated Rule #9 by posting a big chunk from Wikipedia. Hopefully this time it's ok
I've been watching Hitler:Circle Of Evil, a really good Netflix documentary on the inner circle of the Third Reich. I am on Episode 4 with deals mainly with the start of the war and Hess's fall from power and influence, ending with his failed mission into England and subsequent capture.
I knew the basics of the story, that he went to England, got captured and spent the rest of the war in a British prison. I didn't know a lot of the details like who he was going to see. According to the documentary he thought if he spoke to the Duke Of Hamilton, a British noble who he met in Germany in 1936 during the Olympics, he could get an audience with Churchill to discuss a peace deal.
Obviously that isn't what happened. Hess spends the entire war in prison. There was an inquiry about it in Parliament but he was found to have no knowledge of the plot.So i get he faced no official governmental punishment. What i was wondering about is if being associated with Hess affected his business or personal life. People might not want to attend a party hosted by the guy who was chums with the Deputy Fuhrer. I know he was an aviator, so maybe a company might not want to sell planes to a guy who was buddies with Hess. I was just curious about that. Thanks.
When did the practice start? What were the cases that lead to their inevitable banning/outlawing? Are there any famous tontines, or famous individuals that were part of a tontine?
I have always been interested in them, but the legality of them and who rightly owns whatever was up for grabs seems wishy-washy at best. And who would want to wait until their buddies were dead to inherit something? I know that most tontines likely ended with several of the few remaining individuals killing the others to obtain them, but are there any actual findings that support this?
I know that many of them had to do with post war loot, and that no one actually knew the location so as to prevent inner-feuding... but this might all just be pure speculation.
I work as a historical researcher and I came across a coat of arms following up a lead. I'm a good researcher but out of my depth when it comes to heraldry. Does anyone here know of a good database for researching it? If it helps the coat of arms in question id from a Scottish/Northern Irish family from the 17th and 18th century that came to America in the middle of the 18th.
I'm wrapping up on the History of Rome podcast and am looking for a new history podcast to start after I'm done. I'm weary of a lot of them though because there seems to be a lot of history podcasts that oversimplify events and issues, like Dan Carlin's Hardcore History, so I'm looking for things that go really in depth. Thanks.
Was watching a few videos and reading some random articles and such about battles during the roman era, mainly focusing on rome fighting armies around its borders.
So this got me thinking, how did these random bands of small and even larger and such form to march hundreds maybe sometimes thousands of miles? Did they have formations and organized giant lines that walked on paths and roads (for instance calvary in front, heavy infantry, light, and archers and such in certain parts of the march). Or did they just randomly tag along with whoever their clans leader was and when they got to the battlefield just lined up and charged when ever everyone else charged? Also how did the logicists of these giant bands work? I doubt they had a sophisticated wagon, base to base type system like the romans had to feed the army.
Im sure it varies from faction to faction. But obviously they were doing something right since there have been bunch of times that roman legions had been defeated in large battles in northern europe.
I posted a similar thread to this the other day and I feel like there were quite a few replies that I wasn't looking for, perhaps due to a misleading title. These were replies that made references to (although interesting) stories of disasters and near-disasters that took place due to the imperial system being used when the metric system should have been (or vice versa).
Some other instances made references to incidents that took place in one language, but perhaps due to the tone projected by the speaker talking (at the time), the message did not sound alert enough or was misinterpreted by the person listening to the message.
I don't mean to sound like some kind of a stuck up snob, so this time around I would like to
specifically mention clarify that this question was actually inspired by the thread of pompey getting killed by the egyptians My original thought process was something like, "Was there, perhaps, some sort of miscommunication or mistranslation from the Latin or Greek in Rome at the time by the Egyptians who spoke Coptic?"
I am a student trying to pull together online educational content into a document for teachers at my high school to use. This was mainly because I noticed that a lot of teachers at my school neglected to use the considerable amount of learning resources available online instead choosing to rely on rather dull text-books. I thought that if they had some kind of online resource that they could look at and see all of the high-quality content available online then they might begin to incorporate some of it into teaching. I am currently working on a document for History since that is what I am most interested in and have easily found plenty of quality History YouTube channels and subreddits. However I am struggling to find many websites that a teacher might want to use to teach history. I had a look through this subreddit's wiki and didn't see anything of real use (in terms of websites).
For context my High Schools curriculum mostly focuses on WWI-II and the Cold War, as well as a section on Important Revolutions (French, American, Russian Revolutions).
I was in r/wwiipics and saw this photo of a Japanese soldier lighting a cigarette for a wounded American. I noticed that in the background, there was another American soldier, not wounded and fully armed, watching the encounter.
I was wondering how soldiers usually reacted if they encountered the enemy helping out the other side. Would they try to capture and/or kill the enemy, or did they wait for the moment to pass? Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.
Link to picture: http://goedhartvoordieren.nl/?page=r/wwiipics/comments/8cn1ah/a_wounded_and_partially_buried_japanese_soldier/?st=JKWHJJ32&sh=ae032c87https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fwwiipics%2Fcomments%2F8cn1ah%2Fa_wounded_and_partially_buried_japanese_soldier%2F%3Fst%3DJKWHJJ32%2Cae032c87
The question might sound stupid, but I really don't know. During these wars I imagine it must've been hard to find areas that were safe. In the movies Saving Private Ryan and Fury, we see quite a few civilians, mostly in Fury, going into the Allied territory. I'm sure during WW1 they tried to escape behind the fronts, but think of scenarios like German citizens late in the war. Where did people go? Did they hide in buildings that could potentially be destroyed, and were a majority of them picked up by an army?
Just came across this passage in "The Iron Kingdom," and laughed out loud.
It made me think of all the times that I felt that the study of History would be so much easier if people used more than three first names.
Here were the subjects that came right to mind with this issue:
Anything having to do with the House of Hohenzollern (everyone is named Friedrich, Wilhelm, or Friedrich-Wilhelm).
Medieval British history (James, James, James, James, James, Mary Queen of Scots, James).
Ancient Rome (Gaius Julius Caesar -- no not the famous one).
In hindsight, I know what Communism does not actually work in theory as its implementation makes the country prone to economic stagnancy and subject to political corruption and lots of political and economic problems in the general public in that Communist state (And we also learned on how far two opposing ideologies are willing to go for, which in my opinion, it felt like a 40 year war of imperialism or who had the biggest penis even if it meant showing off nuclear warheads, to show off whose ideology was better where the same war achieved nothing for both sides in the end except for some technological advancement that are still advancing to this day)
But even the early 20th Century when the Communist ideology was starting to be established, many people hated the Communists so much and were frightened by them like the Spanish Civil War was mostly anti-Communist, the Shanghai massacre involved the execution of lots of Chinese communists and the Reichstag fire was wrongfully blamed to the Communists.
So why exactly was the early pre-Cold War 20th Century really hesitant against Communism in the first place?
I was watching a documentary about the Caliphates and the presenter said that due to the translation of Ancient Greek texts from Persians/Arabs, the Renaissance came at a much quicker date. I would like to know if there is any truth behind this, and to what extent other Islamic empires influenced the Renaissance.
Ideally something in the Dan Carlin mode would be ideal. Also a big fan of Mike Duncan's Revolutions or Patrick Wyman's Tides of History (and their style of a continuing series about a specific topic).
Does anyone know of a good one? I have been reading about it lately but I am such history podcast fan, I'd like to listen to one if there is something good available.
From what I understand, small wars between vassals of kings, were relatively common. However, as they are not as flashy or famous as major wars between kingdoms ie. Hundred Years' War, I don't have much information on how they would start, end, and everything in between.
P.S. Would it ever happen that a vassal of one king would declare war on a vassal of another without causing a war with the kingdom itself?
I've always been confused about how territory is defined. I know nowadays there are signs and physical borders like walls and fences, but what was there back then? An answer would be people, but there obviously weren't lines of people that would make up a border. Long ago when European countries were forming, who or what determined their border? Couldn't a random jo claim a bit of land and call it a country? A newly formed country wouldn't be on most maps so surely there would've been much confusion. Moving on to modern times (ish), during WW1, Central and Allied borders were set by claimed trenches, but they wouldn't be able to update their maps that often. What determined what land they lost and what land they gained. Overall I think you now get the gist of what I'm poorly trying to explain, so I'd love to read your thoughts on this.
After listening to the History of Rome podcast by Mike Duncan, I want to know if there is a podcast that follows a similar format to Mike Duncan's work covering 1600s to present day America or the United States. I couldn't find anything on the interweb so I hope you guys have suggestions.
If you look at an NFL roster 50 years ago, I doubt you could find even a handful of players that were over 6'2 and 300 pounds. Now, you'd have a hard time finding more than a handful of NFL offensive linemen who are UNDER those two measurements. I realize with better access to nutrition, kids who dream of playing in the NFL and with millions of dollars of motivation, dedicate their life to honing their skills while trying to become as big as possible in the weightroom, and factors like those that it makes seem people have gotten bigger in general (500 years ago you probably would have been hard pressed to find someone that stood over 6' period), but it seems that with the lottery that is the generic crapshoot, you would at least some of the time luck upon an athlete that was 6'7", 325lbs, and could move well enough to play say left tackle. But those genetic anomalies didn't seem to happen nearly as often 50 year's ago. Were people back then capable of reaching those sizes while still possessing world class athleticism and maybe just didn't have access to proper nutrition, the training of today, etc, or were there other factors back then that prevented it?
/r/History is a place for discussions about history. Feel free to submit interesting articles, tell us about this cool book you just read, or start a discussion about who everyone's favorite figure of minor French nobility is!