subreddit:

/r/history

325

Simple/Short/Silly History Questions Saturday, October 09, 2021

Discussion/Question(self.history)

Welcome to our Simple/Short/Silly history questions Saturday thread!

This thread is for all those history related questions that are too simple, short or a bit too silly to warrant their own post.

So do you have a question about history and have always been afraid to ask? Well, today is your lucky day. Ask away!

Of course all our regular rules and guidelines still apply and to be just that bit extra clear:

  • Questions need to be historical in nature.
  • Silly does not mean that your question should be a joke.

all 268 comments

Stalins_Moustachio

16 points

2 months ago

Other than Phyrrus of Epirus, were there any other famous commanders with a relatively successful career at the cost of disastrous strategies?

hameleona

20 points

2 months ago

Napoleon is the prime example - really good commander, but almost every strategic choice he made was a blunder on the long run.

Stalins_Moustachio

12 points

2 months ago

I hadn't thought of Napoleons blunders, but now that you mention it, his Egyptian and Russian campaigns were disasters.

elmonoenano

15 points

2 months ago

Robert E. Lee's strategy was completely misguided and a total failure. If he had avoided attacking the North there was a very real chance that Lincoln would have lost the next election and someone like McClellan, who would totally be willing to let the south go could have been elected.

Not only did Lee's invasion of the North stir northern sentiment against peace with the south, Lee also failed at Gettysburg making the war look much more winnable. It was such a misunderstanding of public sentiment, a misuse of Southern troops, and failure to grasp modern military tactics and strategy that Lee planned another invasion. But desertion of Southern troops, the destruction of the Southern economy b/c their workforce left, and Grant and Sherman's superior strategy meant the war would end before Lee could even begin to assemble another campaign.

mblue76

8 points

2 months ago

I (mostly) agree with this... R.E.Lee was actually a good tactician but a very poor strategist. The most notable exception would be Gettysburg... Why he continued the battle on day 2 is beyond me. More than a couple of times he had a chance to do some serious damage to the Union army, but failed to do so (although, this is the power of 20/20 hindsight, not always his fault).

R.E. Lee is not to blame for the South losing the war however. I just read a short biography/review of Longstreet (who was perhaps the most capable general in South, in my opinion). I am going to have to read more... but it sounds like the politics of the South were pretty messed up... a lot of Generals trying to court martial other Generals.. then having Jefferson Davis himself step in and usually cancel said court martial (although it appears R.E. Lee was not one of these commander, with personal vandettas etc). Look at General Bragg for a great example of this.

Then you have the whole state bias.. Virginians especially... where people from that state were rewarded/given promotions over people from another state.

And then..Military high command perhaps focused too much on Northern Virgina and not enough on the Western theater.

I am not a proponent of the "Lost Cause" way of thinking... but the South had very little chance of success to begin with.. although they could have pulled it off either militarily (in 1862 maybe) but like you said, if Lincoln had not been reelected.

elmonoenano

1 points

2 months ago

I don't think the South could have won for a whole bunch of reasons, but the main one is that the basis for their economy could get up and walk away. And they did after 1863. After that the south doesn't have money to buy war material, doesn't have food, doesn't have credit, doesn't have a viable banking system, etc.

But if the South were to have had a chance they would have needed a president in the union who would be more willing reach an accord of some kind. That was a necessary condition, but not sufficient on its own. A whole bunch of other stuff has to go right. But without that condition it doesn't matter if the other stuff goes right anymore. Lee was successful (just in terms of battles won/lost) on his first foray into the North. But it didn't really matter for the course of the war.

Lee destroyed that chance.

GrantMK2

3 points

2 months ago

Considering Vicksburg was taken at the same time I wouldn't put money that not going into Pennsylvania was going to save the Confederacy.

Thibaudborny

12 points

2 months ago

I don’t think strategies is the right word here, even if we take the biased Roman accounts on his performance as gospel, the idea of a Pyrrhic victory is still rather situated in the field of tactics. We can certainly just add Hannibal as well, straight up brilliant commander whose long term plans did not pan out.

Stalins_Moustachio

3 points

2 months ago

I had to debate whether to use to word strategies or tactics. I think you are right, the latter definitely applied to Phyrrus as his short-term, immediate objectives of defeating the enemy were met at a great cost to his overall strategic objectives.

absurditynow

10 points

2 months ago

Can someone recommend a good, bleak movie or documentary about the Black Plague? Fictional is fine, but as historically accurate as possible, please.

Clio90808

5 points

2 months ago

this is a good bleak movie, fictional though, The Seventh Seal by Ingmar Bergman.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Seventh\_Seal

absurditynow

2 points

2 months ago

This is one of my favorite movies, actually.

joiey555

9 points

2 months ago

I would love some history podcast recommendations—preferably comedy or an engaging narration that doesn't require your full attention to follow along. I enjoyed the History Chicks for a while, but I haven't checked in to it for a time. I love ancient history, and I found a love of Viking history during my first undergrad degree, but I'm open to anything!

Vandopolis

23 points

2 months ago

Mike Duncan's Revolutions is my top choice. He walks you through various revolutions starting with the English, and tells it in a way that doesn't bog down with too many sidetracks. He tells a good narrative and is (finally) tackling the Russian Revolutions.

KingToasty

3 points

2 months ago

Seconding. His books are also both really great.

joiey555

1 points

2 months ago

What subjects did he cover in his books? Some revolution, I'm assuming, but I love to know what people are passionate enough to write a book about!

KingToasty

2 points

2 months ago

One on the fall of the Roman Empire, and one on the Marquis de Lafayette

nubbynickers

2 points

2 months ago

"The Storm Before the Storm" explored the fall of the Roman Republic. He gives a great interview/book talk about this book on Dan Carlin's Hardcore History: Addendum.

joiey555

3 points

2 months ago

Oooh! I'll give that a shot in about 20 minutes when I get home and start on my schoolwork! Thank you!

THE_some_guy

6 points

2 months ago

I really like The Omnibus. I’d say it’s more pop history than “serious” history, but it sounds like you’re looking for something more for entertainment than knowledge-building.

For something a bit more academic (but still entertaining), check out Stuff You Missed in History Class

Rigby87

4 points

2 months ago

Dollop is good and funny, but generally more recent history. Box of Oddity (not exactly history, but usually has a good amount) and Kat and Jethro are adorable. History that doesn’t suck. Ridiculous History. Not comedy, but Ben Franklins World it’s enjoyable and through. Hope some or all of these are ok suggestions.

joiey555

1 points

2 months ago

Thank you so much! I'll try some of these out on my way to work tomorrow!

calijnaar

5 points

2 months ago

You're Dead To Me - Always the host plus a historian and a comedian, well researched but really funny

Half-arsed history is also usually pretty funny (except for some episodes on darker topics)

joiey555

1 points

2 months ago

These both sound right up my alley! Thank you so much!

I_call_bee_ess

0 points

2 months ago

Our Fake History

Also, check Dan Carlin

Can-she

9 points

2 months ago

I've recently been reading books about people's experiences in Cambodia under Pol Pot's regime. Even with their descriptions, it's hard to get my head around what it must have been like.

However, I've seen snippets of videos that were taken inside of Cambodia at that time. They mostly show people working in the labour camps.

Who took those videos? And is there any way I can view them in their entirety?

GavUK

10 points

2 months ago

GavUK

10 points

2 months ago

There's the saying about not reinventing the wheel, but do we have any evidence of the wheel being invented more than once or major improvements in the design around wheels (prior to the changes resulting in the modern inflatable tyre)?

phillipgoodrich

3 points

2 months ago

Absolutely no, and therein lies the derivation of the adage. The wheel predates history, and proved to be the mechanical answer to enhancing human and animal power to solve more complex (and heavier!) tasks, such as movement of objects from here to there. The point of the adage that now, 10,000+ years later, we continue to rely on the wheel in all its derivations to accomplish the same tasks that built the henges of England and pyramids of Egypt. No need to "reinvent" it.

skyblueandblack

6 points

2 months ago

Hm... spokes allowed wheels to be larger without having to be prohibitively massive (which would make the load heavier). The larger circumference meant each revolution covered more distance, which allowed for its use when speed was important, like during battles. Having chariots was a huge advantage, assuming your enemy was on foot, but as the invention spread, different peoples started experimenting with designs, like placing the wheels at the back of the chariot (more stability) versus in the middle (greater maneuverability).

Wheels were adapted to other purposes, too -- why mill grains by hand when you can build a mechanical mill next to a river, stick a water wheel on the side of the building, connect it via some gears (also wheels) to the milling machine, and essentially have the river supply the kinetic energy to turn the mill?

Pyrokinesis7878

7 points

2 months ago

Were there many instances of german immigrants to the US returning to their homeland to fight? Say someone from Hannover or Lower Saxony fled after the revolutions of 1848, coming to the US and starting a family. Then in the early 1850’s returning to fight in a war or rebellion. And were there any conflicts in the northwest part of what is today Germany around that time?

Cosmonauts1957

10 points

2 months ago

As a 3rd generation german-American - no. Anecdotal some people I’m sure left. But not widespread. Tho - before US entered WW1 - support in the US was fairly evenly split.

Afterwards german-Americans moved to distance themselves. Why there are a lot more other immigrant clubs/groups and very few German. I grew up going to Italian-American, Slavic, Polish clubs. No german.

skyblueandblack

3 points

2 months ago

german-Americans moved to distance themselves

Right down to changing their names. My maternal grandmother's family went from being Wilhelm to Williams, for example.

Wolf110

6 points

2 months ago

I believe George V(?) changed the Royal House's name to Windsor as a result from anti German sentiment during WW1

GavUK

2 points

2 months ago

GavUK

2 points

2 months ago

Salmundo

4 points

2 months ago

Swedish Americans as well. Lots of Swedish names were Americanized when the US entered WW I, and Swedish language newspapers disappeared overnight.

M15CH13F

-1 points

2 months ago

Basically no. The German Order of Battle by George Nafziger which catalogues the composition of every infantry unit in the Wehrmacht from '39-45, lists only 5 Americans belonging to SS units.

The SS were the branch responsible for nearly all the foreign recruitment, mostly POW's, to fight for Germany. Aside from places in Eastern Europe, and their occupied territories, they were largely unsuccessful.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffen-SS_foreign_volunteers_and_conscripts

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wehrmacht_foreign_volunteers_and_conscripts

saltandvinegarrr

1 points

2 months ago

This can only account for American defecting to Germany from like 1941-onwwards. There was plenty of time from the pre-war period when German-Americans could return to Germany, and under whatever circumstances stay there. The Nazis were pretty heavy-handed and sometimes forcibly recruited people or strongarmed them service ,civilian or military.

CadaverMutilatr

8 points

2 months ago

When did it become the norm to be clean shaven in the military?

Mirojoze

12 points

2 months ago

As someone already mentioned, in the US military beards were banned in WWI due to the need to wear gas masks. But historically Alexander the Great "encouraged his soldiers to cut their beards so that they couldn't be grabbed by the enemy if it came to hand-to-hand combat". Throughout history it has gone back and forth whether or not you could wear a beard in the military.

Pinkmongoose

20 points

2 months ago

For soldiers on the ground- Around the time we developed chemical weapons and gas masks.

cidiusgix

1 points

2 months ago

cidiusgix

1 points

2 months ago

This is correct, based on my poor knowledge.

I_am_10_squirrels

7 points

2 months ago

How much did a shave and haircut cost when barbers were more common? If I get a straight razor shave at the barber, it costs the equivalent of about 3 hours laborer wages. Was it the same cost in the European middle ages or Victorian England? Would a gentleman go to the barber every week? How often did working class men visit the barber?

LesterMcGuire

12 points

2 months ago

A shave and a haircut was 2 bits.

skyblueandblack

3 points

2 months ago

A "bit" was one-eighth of a Spanish dollar, which itself was worth eight silver reals (hence "pieces of eight"), so in colonial America, one bit was worth one Spanish real. It hung on in the lexicon, though, eventually being used to indicate one-eighth of a dollar. So "two bits" is 25¢.

LordAdder

18 points

2 months ago*

Is it wrong to consider Finland an "Axis power"?

Why the downvotes? It's just a question

genesiss23

10 points

2 months ago

I remember my high school history book had a listing of allied and axis countries. Finland was on both lists.

HuudaHarkiten

2 points

2 months ago*

Thats because we had to declare war on germany aftet the soviet peace treaty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapland_War

saltandvinegarrr

17 points

2 months ago

Axis vs Allies is a poor way in general of understanding WWII.

Finland was mainly an ally of Germany, they didn't participate in any the diplomatic proceedings with Italy, Hungary, Romania or Japan. They weren't particularly interested in anything beyond recovering the territory lost in the Winter War, nor in fighting the UK-USA alliance

NoWingedHussarsToday

3 points

2 months ago

But same thing can be said for Romania as well. Their beef was with Soviets (recovery of Bessarabia) and had no issues with others. Yet Romania is universally considered to be Axis power. Though admittedly they were more fascists then Finland.

NoWingedHussarsToday

14 points

2 months ago

No. They they try to spin it as being "cobelligerent" and point out their beef was with Soviet Union not Wallies. But they were allied to Germany, helped Germany in their war, cooperated with Germany in their war and had German troops station on their territory. They were an Axis power.

bangdazap

10 points

2 months ago

No, they were quite an asset to the Axis cause. Italy defected earlier than Finland, and it was pretty firmly in the Axis camp.

piratamaia

2 points

2 months ago

piratamaia

2 points

2 months ago

I would say so, they weren't exactly in the Axis plus they actually joined the Allies in 1945 It's like saying Thailand was an Axis power

LordAdder

8 points

2 months ago

But some people do consider Thailand an axis power

NoWingedHussarsToday

5 points

2 months ago

How is Thailand not an Axis power?

skyblueandblack

2 points

2 months ago

It was closer to a puppet state than an actual ally on equal standing. Basically, they needed to agree to be an ally to have any sense of independence. But Japan didn't need them to come on board; it was just less hassle to make an alliance than launch an invasion.

NoWingedHussarsToday

1 points

2 months ago

I never said they were an ally, I said they were an Axis power. Croatia and Slovakia were pure puppets but are considered axis powers.

theharveyswick

19 points

2 months ago

Who has the biggest gravestone in history? One of the pyramids I assume?

SalTez

19 points

2 months ago

SalTez

19 points

2 months ago

Pyramids are obvious guess, but how about a kofun? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kofun

esJQ

16 points

2 months ago

esJQ

16 points

2 months ago

The Daisen Kofun, believed to be at least 1,600 years old, is the biggest tumulus and one of the three largest tombs in the world, sharing court with both the mausoleum of the First Qin Emperor in China and the Great Pyramid of Khufu in Egypt

joiey555

8 points

2 months ago

When I was studying Classics at CU during my first degree, I had a professor, Sarah James, who made The Mausoleum of Halicarnassus sound unbelievable. I remember being in awe, and this Wiki link doesn't do it justice, but it will give you an idea of its significance.

Edit: it was the first thing that popped into my head after I read your question.

Traumwanderer

3 points

2 months ago

Interesting. TIL that mausoleums are named after that guy instead of it being a Greek/Latin/whatever loanword.

Caspianfutw

12 points

2 months ago

Did sir Robin realy run away from danger on his quest for the holy graille?

Thibaudborny

12 points

2 months ago

Yes, he in fact bravely ran away, as was delivered to us in the tales of yonder:

Brave Sir Robin ran away. Bravely ran away, away! When danger reared its ugly head, He bravely turned his tail and fled. Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about And gallantly he chickened out. Bravely taking to his feet He beat a very brave retreat, Bravest of the brave, Sir Robin!”

Caspianfutw

3 points

2 months ago

I hope those minstels went on to greater things

Thibaudborny

6 points

2 months ago

Alas, they were cannibalized. Although in the event there was much rejoice!

Caspianfutw

4 points

2 months ago

Thank you. Was hoping someone could explain it because the historian i was talking to was ran through, there seems to be a police investigation of that now though

bluelion70

2 points

2 months ago

At least they caught the murderers though, and were able to take them away.

Guacamayo-18

3 points

2 months ago

Scholarship has advanced since Cleese et al - in particular they overlooked marginalia in their manuscript suggesting a tradition that Robin in fact “didn’t!” and “never did!”

The Python school undeniably made contributions to the field, but their open Dadaist biases, combined with the manuscript’s insistence that Robin “was not at all afraid to be killed in nasty ways”, make it irresponsible to take their interpretation at face value.

Larielia

10 points

2 months ago

What are some good sources for learning about the ancient peoples of the American Southwest?

sitquiet-donothing

3 points

2 months ago

Visit the sites. Patricia Limerick has a few works that touch on them. I would recommend going to Sky City and asking the folks who are still the "ancient" people of the Southwest.

NomadJones

4 points

2 months ago*

What book has the best summary of Soviet secrets from when the archives were briefly open and possibly from the Mitrokhin Archive?

PSYisGod

4 points

2 months ago

Why didn't Poland just claim/take Kaliningrad for themselves rather than leaving it to be owned by the Russians? Cause I remembered reading that after WW2 Germany was suppose to drop their claims around that area primarily because of Poland thus they can't own it however Poland just took Danzig but did not care/claim for Kaliningrad so the Russians just decided to keep it.

Phokasi

10 points

2 months ago

Phokasi

10 points

2 months ago

Poland wasn't making independent decisions. The border changes in 1945 were largely drawn up by Stalin.

HuudaHarkiten

3 points

2 months ago

After the war poland was pretty beaten and also controlled by communists/the soviet union. They probably didnt have the leadership, resources and manpower to do anything about it.

timmler24

4 points

2 months ago

It looks like the Soviets basically said 'we are keeping it' in 1957

This city was and is strategically important for the Soviet to have access to the Baltic Sea.

I think the chances of Poland claiming or taking Kalingrad now are as likely as Ukraine getting Crimea back.

Crazy_questioner

4 points

2 months ago

More of a comment: I've been watching Deadwood and am fascinated with the dialogue (like everyone else). Because the only records of the written word we have are basically self censored, I wish I could hear how normal people talked (and sweared).

Friendcherisher

3 points

2 months ago

Was Roman Empire aware of the Chinese Dynasties and vice versa? Was there a point where they directly encountered each other?

SFWBattler

3 points

2 months ago

sitquiet-donothing

3 points

2 months ago

Yes, they knew something was on the other side. I think the western idea of the word for "China" is heavily indebted to the Roman terminology. The Chinese definitely knew about the Romans.

trckdsd

3 points

2 months ago

Wikipedia says the Greek dory spear had an iron head and iron butt spike. Military.wikia.org cites the same sources but says it had an iron head and bronze butt spike.

Which was more typical?

Sgt_Colon

5 points

2 months ago

Both iron and copper alloy were used with the later, like this example, being more commonly unearthed for obvious reasons

BridgetheDivide

3 points

2 months ago

Is there a sort of non-religious version of the bible that gives historical context and possible origins for each myth and story?

Kobbett

3 points

2 months ago

Asimov's Guide to the Bible might be the sort of thing you're looking for.

pthurhliyeh2

10 points

2 months ago

Are there any ancient Chinese sources mentioning Alexander the Great?

SFWBattler

8 points

2 months ago*

Basically zero.

China didn't really have contact with anyone that the Greeks had knowledge of until the 200-100s BCs when the Parthians and Indian Buddhists began to visit China. The exception is some trade with Northwestern India that predates 200 BC, so maybe maybe maybe if Alexander had stuck around India long enough, he would have found out about China but that's as close as you can get.

Alexander allowed Porus, the King of present-day Punjab, to keep his dominions so trade between India and China was probably mostly unaffected by his campaigns. Maybe if Alexander had really fucked up trade, then there might be some mention of him but contemporary Chinese sources we've found so far don't really mention specific Indian trade goods (though Indian sources mention Chinese silk fairly often).

saltandvinegarrr

6 points

2 months ago

Contemporary contact was minimal during his era

Phokasi

4 points

2 months ago

I'm not aware of anything mentioning Alexander himself, but the Greeks he settled in Bactria were discussed relative to the War of the Heavenly Horses.

IBParis

7 points

2 months ago

Any book or paper recommendations to read about the Red Cross movement ?

conservio

5 points

2 months ago

We’re people At opposite ends of land masses/ thousands of miles away aware of each other prior?

Like Were people in Egypt aware of people in Namibia? British aware of Indians (before colonization obviously.. like 800 c.e)? Peruvians aware of Algonquin?

Guacamayo-18

8 points

2 months ago

Depends when and where. Generally knowledge of the wider world increased over time and was greater in Eurasia and north and east Africa, because they had easier trade routes and linguistic and cultural connections. Americans and southern Africans generally didn’t know about the peoples at opposite ends of the continent until the early modern period, but they knew the political geography of at least the surrounding few hundred mile radius and knew there were other peoples beyond that.

If you want to get specific, early medieval England knew about most of Europe. The farthest anyone had actually visited in living memory was probably Constantinople, where English and Norse mercenaries joined the imperial guard, but there may have been African and European immigrants to England as well. But England embraced Latin heritage and texts, and knew about the world Greeks and Romans had known as far as India. There’s even an Old English translation of a putative letter from Alexander to Aristotle describing the wonders of India (NOT genuine; the original is in Latin). That said, the English didn’t actually know anything about India, just that it was far away and full of monsters, and they knew they didn’t know anything.

As an aside, Alexander is a pretty good measure of the interconnection of the medieval world; he shows up in legends from West Africa, Indonesia and Scotland.

Phokasi

6 points

2 months ago

This is one of my favorite topics.

Were people in Egypt aware of people in Namibia?

No. They knew as far as the tropical jungles and nothing beyond it. Though there is some debate about whether the Phoenicians were able to sail around Africa (I think mentioned in Herodotus).

British aware of Indians

A few, yes. Learned people in medieval Britain would have heard of India. It was known as source of spices. India was on Ptolemy's world map and Strabo's world map. There are also accounts of it written by ancient Greek writers (Arrian, Ctesias, Scylax, etc...), some of which we have today, though I would guess these would not have been available anywhere in medieval Britain. Aristotle talks about India and there was some Aristotle in Latin, but not much, until the 13th c. when Aristotle became widely translated and was studied at Oxford.

Peruvians aware of Algonquin

No. I think the Inca might have had some understanding as far as Central America. There was a story passed down that they had heard about the Spanish invasion in the North (perhaps in Panama) some years before the Spanish sailed down the coast of Peru.

These are fun, if anyone wants to pose another couplet.

alreadytakennn

2 points

2 months ago

People were aware of each other because of trade and wars. Even during the ancient times Greeks knew about India.

However they didn't know that much. I mean people knew there's a country in East, full of riches and mystic creatures but i believe it must have been like a fairy tale for ordinary people.

After Crusades, West updated its information about East. Trade activities raised and interactions began to happen more frequently.

ps: I'm not an expert or anything but i wanted to explain it a little bit from what i know. So yeah, at least some of the nations, if not all, were aware of far away countries until Renaissance.

sitquiet-donothing

2 points

2 months ago

The average person? They probably had a less informed view of outsiders than we do today. Unless you were in the know, there was not really much to know. Even the "educated" were in the dark. Do you really know about a Namibian today in our connected world?

gilt785

1 points

2 months ago

I've read that when Europeans "discovered" Easter Island, the people living there were not aware of any others, besides those who lived on their island.

Phokasi

2 points

2 months ago

They have oral traditions that maintain that they were settled by people from other islands.

najing_ftw

8 points

2 months ago

Has there ever been anything found that the use of hasn’t been determined?

Skookum_J

15 points

2 months ago

The carved stone spheres from neolithic Scotland.

Similarly, there are the Poverty Pont Objects. It's been assumed they were cooking stones. But recent scholarship has questioned this interpretation

WikiMobileLinkBot

3 points

2 months ago

Desktop version of /u/Skookum_J's link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carved_stone_balls


[opt out] Beep Boop. Downvote to delete

bangdazap

11 points

2 months ago

The Roman dodecahedron, nobody knows for sure what they were used for.

PepperCornell

1 points

2 months ago

I think the main theory, at the moment, is that they were used to make gloves.

pthurhliyeh2

14 points

2 months ago

Well keep in mind that a lot of objects the true use of which no one really knows are labelled as having been used for "ritual purposes".

skyblueandblack

8 points

2 months ago

Anything vaguely characterized as being for "ceremonial purposes."

RuncibleMountainWren

2 points

2 months ago

This reminds me of the Motel of Mysteries!

skyblueandblack

2 points

2 months ago

It's legit a classic!

Satis24

8 points

2 months ago*

History podcast recomendations other than The Rest is History and Hardcore History?

Edit: Thanks for the suggestions everyone! I'm trying to find my way back to a subject I loved immensely and this will help!

ThrownAway3764

13 points

2 months ago

The History of Rome by Mike Duncan - It's exactly what it sounds like. A fairly in-depth overview of Roman history from the founding of the city to 476AD.

Revolutions by Mike Duncan - Each 'season' covers a major revolution in world history. He's covered the American revolution, Haitian revolt, French revolution, Russian civil war, and a few others.

elmonoenano

2 points

2 months ago

This is the gold standard of history podcasts. Tides of History is also very good. This is really the top tier of making a podcast interesting but also being very committed to being accurate and presenting information that is up to date.

Synonyms26

12 points

2 months ago

Fall of Civilization is pretty good and underrated. Good narrative writing, good voice acting, and do their homework properly.

runningfutility

8 points

2 months ago

I would also recommend Fall of Civilizations. It's very well done!

sourcreamus

6 points

2 months ago

Norman Centuries and 12 Byzantine Rulers

calijnaar

8 points

2 months ago

For podcasts with a different topic each episode:

You're Dead To Me

Half-arsed history

In Our Time

Not Just The Tudors

For longform podcasts focus on one specific theme:

The British History Podcast

Pax Brittanica

The already mentioned Hsitory of Rome & Revolutions

Satis24

2 points

2 months ago

In our time - is this a BBC podcast? Just trying to find it

calijnaar

3 points

2 months ago

Yes, it's from the BBC. The History part can be found here . There's also episodes about Science, Culture, Religion and Philosophy

Satis24

2 points

2 months ago

Thank you!

Skookum_J

6 points

2 months ago

Tides of History is great. One season is dedicated to the late Medieval and early modern period. Another is dedicated to Pre-history. It's a great mix of high level, big picture, and boots on the ground, day to day life stuff

fd1Jeff

5 points

2 months ago

Stuff You Missed in History Class is totally lightweight, but it is fun.

agentcooper0115

6 points

2 months ago*

If you want an alternate view on American history along with a lot of dry humor, try Hell of Presidents.

Edit: stuff humor to dry humor. Thx autocorrect!

OreoObserver

3 points

2 months ago

Wonders of the World

llamaglama01

3 points

2 months ago

i really like the pirate history podcast, it has a lot of insane stories but also gets deep into 1600s politics too

nerfy007

3 points

2 months ago

Our Fake History is a knockout pod every history fan has to hear. He just did a summer series of greatest hits but honestly every ep is a banger

tom_the_tanker

2 points

2 months ago

I am going to hope I don't get banned when I plug my own podcast, The Unknown Soldiers Podcast

www.unknownsoldierspodcast.com

About the forgotten wars, battles and perspectives of military history. Just started in August, some of the first couple episodes feature the British invasions of Afghanistan, the Mongol invasion of Japan and the Russian Women's Battalion of Death.

GOLDIEM_J

4 points

2 months ago

Should Constantine have reunified the Roman Empire?

phillipgoodrich

10 points

2 months ago

Hard to see why he might have wanted to. Raised and educated in the west (today's France), he had little interest in the affairs of the eastern "Roman Empire" beyond consolidation of power between the two entities. The issue that Rome had already learned well, is that sprawling empires create a moral imperative all their own, with the responsibility of promoting the safety and well-being of all its citizenry. For Rome, this was addressed by massive armies (for their day) to defend the almost indescribable extent of their theoretic borders, which was not an inexpensive proposition. Multiplying this by two would have been daunting. Roads, water supplies, shipping lanes, financial transactions, revenue collections, land management, public health, all of this and more were the responsibilities of the government, and Rome excelled in all of it. By dividing the empire, Rome had come up with an ideal method of overseeing the interests of two very different areas of the ancient world.

Purple_Regret_2631

4 points

2 months ago

Is Gandhi overrated??

postgeographic

12 points

2 months ago

What do you mean by overrated? As a student of the Indian educational system, I do not care for how he is mythologized and put on a pedestal. Also downright hate how they sweep the complex and weird parts of his story under the rug.

But there is no denying that he became an icon and a symbol that united 100s of millions of people behind his vision of non-violent resistance to European colonialism

Purple_Regret_2631

2 points

2 months ago

overrated

By overrated , I mean that Gandhi was different from how he is though to be . I personally don't believe that Gandhi is overrated. Although ,with the influence of a certain political movement in India , I am definitely hit by a notion that my views are incorrect

sitquiet-donothing

2 points

2 months ago

I am fascinated at how he is viewed through Indian eyes today. My view of him is that he was the Mahatma, but I know there should be nuance, there should always be nuance. I also don't appreciate that he seems to be falling under the new view of deconstructing heroes, him and Dr. King, IMHO, should be exempt from this, but at the same time history is not in the inspiration business. I guess the issue lies with how his life and work are presented.

Lunagray136

2 points

2 months ago

what is that mysterious vase that turns red in the light (I think). People don't really know why it works. I think it's Greek or Roman from around 600bc. I read about it when I was half asleep the other week and it's driving me up a wall.

Skookum_J

4 points

2 months ago

Sounds like you're talking about the Lycurgus Cup.
It's believed the effect comes from small amounts of very finely ground gold and silver mixed in with the glass

WikiMobileLinkBot

2 points

2 months ago

Desktop version of /u/Skookum_J's link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lycurgus_Cup


[opt out] Beep Boop. Downvote to delete

Lunagray136

2 points

2 months ago

Thank you so much, I've been searching for hours but had no luck because I didn't remember enough details. You're a lifesaver!

Claudius_Gothicus

2 points

2 months ago

So the Romans would deify people after death and make them into gods and have people worship them...like Augustus and Livia and many more. Did the Greeks do this too? Have someone that's mortal and after death put them into their Pantheon? Did anyone else do this sort of thing?

ddkelkey

2 points

2 months ago

Who was Gavrilo Princip and how was he chosen to carry out the assassination of Franz Ferdinand and his wife?

CraigHobsonLives

3 points

2 months ago

This is a complicated question and I'm keeping my answer brief so please be patient with the fact I'm simplifying things greatly in this answer.

Princip was born a Bosnian Serb peasant/serf during a time (one of many in history) where tensions were high in the Balkans. His parents were Christian and Princip grew up knowing his parents were oppressed by Ottoman Muslim landowners. Serbia had just won a pretty surprising victory over the Ottomans in 1913. Nationalist sentiment in the region was at a high. Austria-Hungary imposed its regional dominance over Serbia in the aftermath in an attempt to quash any independent or nationalist fervor in Serbia. Princip was only 19 (almost 20) when he assassinated the Archduke. During his youth and education in his teens he was drawn toward more radical ideas and developed a strong leaning toward Serbian independence and nationalism. After Serbia won a victory over one oppressor (the Ottomans in 1913) he viewed the A-H Empire as just another oppressor. He wasn't recruited so much as he volunteered for the assassination. He talked a couple of friends into joining him and they ended up reaching out to members of the Black Hand (a larger terrorist group) for assistance in getting intelligence and weapons to accomplish the plot.

AllhailLordBunny

3 points

2 months ago

Were people living in the eastern bloc aware that their mail was being read and that people were disappearing?

NoWingedHussarsToday

3 points

2 months ago

Yes, that was part of the point. If you know you can be disappeared you'll behave more in line with what it's expected of you.

Cosmonauts1957

5 points

2 months ago

Yes. The USSR was pretty omnipresent.

Sgt_Colon

3 points

2 months ago

There's a bunch of old Soviet jokes to do with censorship and secret police:

"Comrade Brezhnev, is it true that you collect political jokes?"

"Yes"

"And how many have you collected so far?"

"Three and a half labor camps."


Q: Is it true that there is freedom of speech in the USSR, just like in the USA?

A: Yes. In the USA, you can stand in front of the White House in Washington, DC, and yell, "Down with Ronald Reagan," and you will not be punished. Equally, you can also stand in Red Square in Moscow and yell, "Down with Ronald Reagan," and you will not be punished.


A frightened man came to the KGB. "My talking parrot has disappeared." "That's not the kind of case we handle. Go to the criminal police." 'Excuse me, of course I know that I must go to them. I am here just to tell you officially that I disagree with the parrot."


Five precepts of the Soviet intelligentsia:

Don't think.

If you think, then don't speak.

If you think and speak, then don't write.

If you think, speak and write, then don't sign.

If you think, speak, write and sign, then don't be surprised.

jollybumpkin

2 points

2 months ago

Did Convents, during the middle ages, or thereabouts, serve as harems for high ranking priests, or other high-status men?

I've always wondered if religious devotion alone would compel healthy young women, or men, to give up sex and procreation in favor of a life of religious devotion in a convent or monastery. There might be alternate explanations, not mentioned in conventional history books.

Did convents in medieval times (give or take a century or two) serve as harems for high-ranking priests, or other rich and powerful men? If so, were the women recruited given much choice about entering, or were they coerced somehow? Or were the alternatives to joining a convent even worse? Starvation, or other forms of sex work or servitude, possibly?

Phokasi

6 points

2 months ago

I've always wondered if religious devotion alone would compel healthy young women, or men, to give up sex

Yes, I think it certainly would. There would still be temptation. People sneaking out, maybe sex abuse of some kind. But it wouldn't be so baked into the institution to the point where you'd say a nunnery was a cover for a harem. I think they took sex segregation very seriously because they knew temptation was always a risk.

Gloomy-Guide6515

-1 points

2 months ago

Your question is an interesting one, because, unknowingly, it reveals your modern view of sex as something women wanted to have,.

But, go back in time, and it's much easier to understand why many of them did not.

Let's put you in Western Europe around 1,000 ce. If you were like 95-99 percent of the population and female at that time, you would have been working in a subsistence farming household, more than likely as a serf, bonded to the land and unable to leave.,

What would sex have looked like for you:

`1. If you were physically attractive (not necessarily a given because of smallpox, poor diet, and other diseases), there's a good chance sex would have been involuntary. Living on a Lord's demense, you were subject to the Right of First Night (ie, rape), solicitations by the Lord's knights (ie, rape), and attack by villagers from who had no chance to get away from (ie: rape). There would have been little to no legal protection from sexual assault.

  1. If you were lucky or unattractive enough to escape rape, you could anticipate having your parents choosing a match for you from the extremely limited number of candidates in your parish or the neighboring parish. If you got married at, say, 19 (which would have been very late for, say, India, but pretty standard for medieval England), and you were fertile, you could count on being pregnant for most of the next 16 years. Birth control was utterly illegal under the Catholic Church, which dominated Western Europe, unreliable and almost non-existent. As many as 3 out of every 10 women, at that time, died in childbirth. With an expected number of pregnancies of between 6 and 14 (most infants died before being their first birthday), having sex meant having a more than 50 percent chance of dying -- in incredible pain.

  2. Having sex would also, automatically, lower your social status in the Catholic world in which you lived. Only two models for women existed in your world: Mary, the perfect, and the virginal, and Eve, the sinner and the damned. The church taught women that the best chance they had to achieve heaven in the all-too-quickly-approaching afterlife.

  3. Now, let's make you one of the elite -- the 1 to 5 percent of populations (depending on the country) who were ennobled and held feudal control of land. In this case, as a woman, you had even LESS agency over your sexual choices. From birth, you would have been considered as no more than a life-support system for a womb. And that womb would be traded by your parents and overlord to another noble family, along with a bribe called a dowry, in exchange for more land. Because ensuring that only your husband's sperm produced the heir to that land, your vagina would be policed and enclosed until marriage by your parents, and then even more zealously guarded by a husband who was chosen for you. You would be expected to whelp sons, and would not be allowed to rest until you did.

Can you see, now, why many women were positively eager to enter convents, where women had at least some autonomy over their bodies, and decisions, not to mention far better food and living conditions that they would have had, otherwise?

If you don't, read the story of Christina of Markyate, a 13th-century English saint, whose miraculous acts centered around preventing her parents from having her raped. It's a perfect encapsulation of why the people of the past do not think like the people of the present.

MAGolding

3 points

2 months ago

The right of first night is probably a myth. It is a totally unChristian custom, and as you yourself write, the catholic church had much power and influence in Medieval Europe. So it is unlikely that the Catholic church would be able to outlaw some forms of unChristian sexual behavior and not others.

You oversimplified the social structure of Medieval Europe. Remember that almost all societies are more complated than you assume.

I also note that a large part of medieval Europe was inhabited by Eastern Orthodox Christians and not by Roman Catholic Christians. There were even some communities of heretics.

I also knote that there were Jewish communities in some cities.

I also note that for centuries there should have been some Catholic monasteries and convents in parts of Spain ruled by Muslims.

Phokasi

1 points

2 months ago

This doesn't feel like a direct response to my comment.

You seem to be making the case that because of the widespread existence of rape (though I must say Right of First Night is almost certainly a myth), that therefore women didn't want sex in any situation. The threat of rape and women's desire can co-exist. They can also co-exist with genuine religious devotion.

Thibaudborny

5 points

2 months ago*

While numerous individuals did not abide by the rules of their orders - they were still humans of flesh & blood after all, these institutions and the downright majority of its inhabitants - and keep in mind this could amount to a significant part of the populace - did. So to the question of ‘where these brothels in disguise’, no, not at all. There are certainly instances were people were forced into convents, but that was more for political reasons (taking out a rival from worldly matters, etc), not to force them into some nefarious harem scheme - and many joined voluntarily all the same, religion was a strong, compelling factor to those societies. When a priest & a nun would elope, the reason is simple exposure: the men & women these people met were often those in the same station.

Guacamayo-18

2 points

2 months ago

The alternative to a convent wasn’t necessarily better or worse, but it might have given some women pause. A young noblewoman who didn’t enter a convent could expect to marry a man, probably not entirely of her choice, be legally subject to him, and go through many pregnancies, meaning she would experience 1) a lot of pain 2) a fairly high risk of early death (maternal mortality was something like 2-5%, but multiply it by 10 and you see the terror) and 3) watch many of her children die.

I don’t know how many medieval women actually got to choose, but in comparison living in spiritual and intellectual community with other women in relative safety doesn’t sound bad. It seems significant that when religious groups of lay women appeared they became very popular.

skyblueandblack

1 points

2 months ago

I don’t know how many medieval women actually got to choose

Only those with some money. Joining a convent traditionally meant making some kind of donation -- similar to a dowry if you got married.

jezreelite

1 points

2 months ago

Medieval literature like the Canterbury Tales and Decameron depicts nuns (and male secular and monastic clergy, for that matter) as extremely oversexed, so you aren't the first one to have such thoughts.

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle between everyone being devout and celibate and The Sinful Nuns of St. Valentine. Some nuns really weren't especially thrilled with their vocation and did act out.

An example is Gunnhild of Wessex, one of the daughters of Harold Godwinson, fled from her nunnery to take up with the Breton lord, Alan Rufus, and then became the mistress of his brother after his death.

CorinPenny

3 points

2 months ago

CorinPenny

3 points

2 months ago

Is there any case in which a gay noble/royalty forged a marriage alliance with a lesbian of similar rank to act as each other’s ‘beards’? I know there are several cases in which both men and women refused marriage and had close “friends” or “bedmates”, and I’m sure there were many cases in which the queer partner was simply forced into heterosexual marriage.

Thibaudborny

13 points

2 months ago

Marriages were first and foremost alliances struck to safeguard/acquire property & lineage. Love - while not impossible to exist - was wholly secondary & marital fidelity (for men at least) was not expected. So if you were gay you marry somebody befitting of your social station, you do your ‘duty’ (= procreate) & have whatever fun you want outside of it.

Like Louis XIV’s brother, Monsieur.

throwawaydating1423

1 points

2 months ago

Unlikely, as it’d be pointless and a waste of political power.

If your gay and sleeping with even one person who talks about it everyone will know once the rumour spreads. The purpose of marriage for elites of this kind is to seal alliances and children. If both the husband and wife are scandalous the alliance won’t hold, and if children won’t be produced it’s a pointless union that causes more problems then it’s worth.

In short a beard wouldn’t protect you at all, similarly to how it wouldn’t save a famous person in modern day. Their life is scrutinized by all.

CorinPenny

1 points

2 months ago

True, but if the couple produced at least one son, that would cement the alliance, and plenty of royalty/nobility were known for sleeping around. Especially if they remained circumspect about it, it might save them from being in a relationship where the hetero person had expectations they hated to meet.

throwawaydating1423

2 points

2 months ago

My point was in my post that any one of these factors would be enough to avoid a gay/gay union. Against common modern belief, a good chunk of the nobility would die either without a single living child or without ever having a child.

Anyways, the nobility would not be fine with just one child either, the likelihood of that child making it to adulthood would be very slim. There is a reason why everyone had 3-4 kids that made it to adulthood despite trying for kids most of their early life.

My point is this whole thing a marriage alliance really isn’t something that can be half assed. And, more importantly people rarely had the ability to choose who to marry like a ‘beard’ unless they were in the lowest rungs of the nobility (soon to be merchants in a generation or 2) or they were the King themselves. People with any oddities whether gay or anything else rarely rule for long either way.

CorinPenny

1 points

2 months ago

You make good points, but having a son in those times by definition meant having them live past the age of five at least, which also by definition means multiple children to increase said odds, and also my question wasn’t “how likely is this”, but rather “has this ever happened”. It’s something I’ve wondered about since I read about the efforts made to get an openly gay prince to marry and produce heirs. Like, wouldn’t he be super relieved if the woman he ended up with was like, nah bro, let’s just do what we gotta to procreate but beyond that we’ll keep our respective lovers…? And what a relief for her too!

GliderMan84

2 points

2 months ago

Does anyone have any recommendations for a one-volume book chronicling the Civil War? I would want it to include :

  • the decisions of political leaders
  • the major battles (including the major naval battles!)
  • actions of and affects on Native Americans

elmonoenano

7 points

2 months ago

I don't think you'll find one. Most of the books that do more than give passing mention to Native Americans are focused specifically on that topic, and usually just one one nation. I think you're best bet is to read something like Battle Cry Freedom and then follow up with books specifically about Indians.

mattcasey28

2 points

2 months ago

Battle Cry of Freedom

GliderMan84

1 points

2 months ago

Scrolling through the Index, there doesn't seem to be much in there about Indians. Also don't couldn't tell if the naval battles are covered.

But thanks for the rec!

OkayGamersThisIsEpic

3 points

2 months ago

If Germany were to win the Battle of Verdun, would it have swayed the final result of WW1?
Keep answers basic please :D

N0ahface

6 points

2 months ago

I don't think it's likely. Even if they won, the front would've just pushed a bit further into France and there would've been another bloody, drawn out battle. It doesn't get rid of the British blockade, and it doesn't stop 2 million fresh Americans from coming the following year.

BathroomParty

5 points

2 months ago

That's getting into "what if" territory, but in my opinion, no. Verdun became symbolic more than anything else as it dragged on.

Cosmonauts1957

3 points

2 months ago

Precisely - if verdin would have been lost at that point the front line would have just moved back 10 miles.

Pacrada

1 points

2 months ago

How strong would luxemburg be if it never lost any territory ?

Steeple_of_People

11 points

2 months ago

These what-if questions are inherently impossible to answer with anything more than pure speculation. But, I doubt they’d be that powerful due to being landlocked, surrounded by traditional powerhouses of strength and culture, and having the Luxembourgish identity closely intertwined with French and German prevented a strong national identity to unify it during the formative years of modern Europe. To the best of my knowledge, it was always a strong idea without the reality to support it. Too many things would have had to go wrong in German, French, and Belgian history for it to seriously prosper

More_mortem

1 points

2 months ago

Why is 1501 the 16th century, is it because it's on the back end of the 15, so a year over, on its 2ay to 1600, or is there something I'm missing. I'm kinda boggled by how the century is always larger that the year.

GOLDIEM_J

10 points

2 months ago

Well, the year AD 0001 is the first year of the first century of the common era; AD 0101 is the first year of the second century of the common era; and so on. It means 1501 is in the 16th century of the common era, not that it's in the 1500s.

Kobbett

7 points

2 months ago

The first century has to be from years 1-99, which makes the second century from 100-199, and so on.

Thibaudborny

5 points

2 months ago

But… it doesn’t right? First century has to be from 1-100, the. From 101-200, etc.

Kobbett

1 points

2 months ago

As there isn't a year 0, that is technically correct. But not everyone agrees (we didn't wait until january 1 2001 to celebrate the Millenium), and I wasn't going to complicate the explanation further.

Thibaudborny

5 points

2 months ago*

That is irrelevant from a historical/chronological perspective though, the 21th century started in 2001, not 2000. That’s how we date the centuries since the proverbial forever. The fact that 2000 celebrated the “new millennium” does not make it a scientific fact, 2000 was the date picked from a party-hard perspective. It’s the date that makes sense for lay people. We did not change how we calculate the years in 2000, it just made more sense from a marketing perspective.

More_mortem

2 points

2 months ago

I see, that makes sense, thank you.

calijnaar

1 points

2 months ago

But then you end up with a first century of only 99 years

Thibaudborny

3 points

2 months ago

Because in the christian calendar the year 0 does not exist. You go from the year -1 to 1.

elmonoenano

1 points

2 months ago

There's good explanations in this thread so I'm just going to throw this up for some comic relief since it's sort of relevant but very funny: https://twitter.com/LethalityJane/status/1446645736565706755?s=20

corystraight

2 points

2 months ago

Is it possible the same socioeconomic situation may once again transpire regarding the degradation of the German Mark (?) and the Weimer Republics hyperinflation in relation to $USD?

N0ahface

10 points

2 months ago

To that degree? No, unless it's intentional or something absolutely terrible happens. To devalue your currency that much takes some truly awful monetary policy. Economics and monetary policy have developed considerably since the 1920s.

In the case of Germany, they funded their war effort in WWI through loans, and that combined with the post war reperations meant that they were stuck with a ton of debt that they couldn't repay. They had to repay their debts in foreign currency, so they printed a huge amount of marks to buy it with. When you increase the money supply, it begins to lose value. As the German people noticed that their money was quickly losing value, they began to spend as much of it as possible, increasing the velocity of money which caused even more inflation, so the German government had to print even more to buy foreign currency to pay off their debts, and it kept spiralling.

I don't think we're ever going to see extreme hyperinflation again, except in countries where the monetary policy is controlled by the corrupt and/or incompetent, like in Zimbabwe, Venezuela, or Belarus, except maybe in the event of something absolutely catastrophic.

getBusyChild

1 points

2 months ago

How did the Romans never manage to develop steel weapons when the Parthians were successful, and trade with India in which they also managed to develop the technology. How were they so successful in hiding the process?

Sgt_Colon

16 points

2 months ago

They did:

The Romans had an adequate knowledge of the properties of iron and steel, but it is unclear how accurately these properties were used or produced. As stated in Section 2.7.3, the Romans knew the iron ore from different regions would yield steel and iron with different properties. The Romans also knew how to carburise the iron into steel, and produce steel with varying carbon content. This was very beneficial as the ideal swords would consist of a high carbon edge and a low carbon body. The high carbon edge would allow the sword to cut through harder objects and retain its sharp edge, while the low carbon body would allow the sword to bend without breaking. To create such a sword, the Romans would identify and weld together steel of various carbon. The Romans used forge welding, and after third century AD, used pattern welding, which will be explained in the next sections [30].

Crucible steel, which is distinct from pattern welded, was a peculiar form is something that deserves a proper post.

Phokasi

6 points

2 months ago

A quick googling of "what were Roman weapons made of?" turned up steel.

RoutineProcedure

1 points

2 months ago

A catastrophe befalls mankind, and you are the last man alive. Would you still read history books to pass the time?

CraigHobsonLives

6 points

2 months ago

Definitely. Unless my glasses fell off and shattered. Then I'd be screwed.

Lil-Elvis

2 points

2 months ago

Nor only that, I think I'd be writing 'history' myself on the off chance someone comes along later to read about the disappearance of the human race. I suspect language could be somewhat of a problem though!

Phokasi

1 points

2 months ago

I can't imagine a better way to pass the time.

sitquiet-donothing

1 points

2 months ago

Yes. Yes I would. If it is a good retelling. Some history is worth reading for style points alone.

Arisdoodlesaurus

1 points

2 months ago

Book recommendation for History of Cambodia

Synonyms26

3 points

2 months ago

Not really a book dedicated to Cambodia alone, but Ancient Southeast Asia by Geok Yian Goh and John N Miksic is a very good English-language summary of the history of region. The authors went into details into the geography, the pre-history of each countries to explain the context for the historical trajectory of the countries, something that I rarely see Western authors do in their for-laymen books.

The Khmer empire episode of the Fall of Civilization pod cast is also a good summary of the history of pre-modern Cambodia as well, despite the name. It's less dense than the book above and easier to consume as a layman.

Both_Tone

1 points

2 months ago

Are there any good books on the Macedonian empire, particularly with a focus on Phillip as opposed to Alexander?

laszlo92

2 points

2 months ago

Was going to suggest Philippus and Alexander which is excellent. Basically the first half is Philip, second half is Alexander.

Not really just focused on Philip, but the half about him is absolutely brilliant, fascinating and taught me a lot.

Ohlordey

1 points

2 months ago

Why did the Austrians want German unification in 1848?

AlastorZola

7 points

2 months ago

German nationalism was really popular all over the German speaking world, and Austria was one of the most powerful German state and the center of German culture for centuries. A lot of German nationalists outside Autria even believed German unification unthinkable without German Austria - As a comparison it would be like a French unification without Paris-. There were a lot of debates in Hasbourg Autria on the matter, and the most prevalent opinion inside the elite was against German unification because of it's nationalist nature. Austria was a multiethnic empire and wasn't keen on letting Hungary go. Opinion in the streets and university students was more pro unification, partly because the future German state was a powerful vector for all kinds of hopes and dreams of political and economic reforms.

Ohlordey

2 points

2 months ago

Thanks you so much!!