I get that the man is still alive but I'm most concerned about when he was campaigning for president or prior to that.

Although I probably don't have to specify why I'm asking I'm going to anyway because I don't want anyone to think I'm targeting him for any specific reason. I'm mostly asking because without speculating on what is or isn't credible he seems to be the only president I remember from Clinton forward that wasn't accused of some sort of sexual impropriety.

If you go on the Wiki page for the First_Battle_of_the_Marne the other name for the battle will come up as Miracle on the Marne. I guess the name resonates so much in WW1 history that it's been now claimed, almost as fact, that if the Germans won the battle then WW1 would've ended in a German victory.

My question is was the battle really a miracle? Was there a singular (or some) decisions that could've lead to an entirely different outcome or was German supply lines and the Schlieffen Plan so bad that it just wasn't feasible to take Paris?

As a few add-ons: was France planning to continue the fight even after Paris fell or was it going to be declared an open city like in WW2 then France surrenders? If France is willing to defend Paris did Germany even have the capability to lay siege or even take the city given their situation?

I'm aware of Acts in the mid 1800s letting married women control things they've inherited independently, but what about single women? There were female entrepreneurs, and I've even read of some women owning industrial companies during this time - would a single women be able to inherit a company her father owns? What challenges would arise in that case - could she sign off on things, could the company even take out loans, or would she need another man to do it for her?

The Franks were a Germanic speaking people but modern day France speaks a Romance language and few people see France as fitting into the Germanic category of countries like the Netherlands and Germany (who also has a long history of Frankish rule). Why did the Netherlands and Germany stay Germanic (for lack of a better term) while France did not.

Any clarification on this would be much appreciated.

I Don't know if this has been asked before, but I can't find any other posts asking this. I just watched the Victor Ninov case and I'm very interested in things in academics that were faked, and I wanted to know if there was similar things in the field of history.

I’ve been reading different accounts of rape in warfare by armies over the many centuries. Rape has been used as a weapon by one party to dehumanize the opposing side during conflicts. Whether it was the Roman Empire, Mongols, Islamic Caliphates or the Russian army today in Ukraine they all have encouraged their troops raping during war.

I was under the impression that every army allowed their soldiers to rape during wartime to build bonds and cohesion among units. The other explanation I hear is that it uplifts solider morale when it has been fatigued by strenuous combat. 

Recently I came across the Sikh military forces. What struck me immediately was their code of conduct during warfare. The Sikh soldiers were commanded not to molest women during battles. The 1700s saw the Sikhs come into conflict with the Mughals and Afghan Durranis. Particularly with the Afghans there was an eyewitness named Qazi Nur Muhammad. He accompanied Ahmed Shah Durrani when the ruler invaded the Indian subcontinent. Durrani battled the Sikh forces many times and the Qazi decided to write a bit about them in his text “Jangnama circa 1764-1765). The Qazi clearly notes that these dogs (the Sikhs) don’t plunder the wealth and ornaments of women. 

"Leaving aside their mode of fighting, hear you another point in which they excel all other fighting people. In no case would they slay a coward, nor would they put an obstacle in the way of a fugitive. They do not plunder the wealth or ornament of a woman, be she a well-to-do lady or a maid servant. There is no adultery among these dogs, nor are these mischievous people given to thieving.

Whether a woman is young or old, they call her Buddhiya, and ask her to get out of their way. The word Buddhiya in the Indian language means an "old lady". There is no thief at all among these dogs, nor is there any house-breaker born amongst these miscreants. They do no make friends with adulterers or house-breakers, although there behavior on the whole is not commendable".

Similarly I came across a later text in the 1800s called the Suraj Parkash. It was written by Sikh poet Santokh Singh. The story is provided below. Main point is that the Sikh military force was instructed by their religious leader not to rape the opposing side’s women. It fits into the narrative provided by Qazi Nur Muhammad from the early 1760s. 

In Suraj Prakash Rut VI, Chapter 20

It mentions how a group of Sikhs had defeated a Mughal force. These Mughal soliders had brought with them their wives and families in the baggage train. Then the Singhs comprehended the character of the Khans. Turks hordes were ravishing Indian women. If the Sikhs took revenge [by raping in retaliation] it should be recognised as good. Why does the Guru’s instruction (note: ਗੁਰ ਸ਼ਾਸਤ੍ਰ implies a written code of conduct i.e. a rahitnama) prevent them [from doing this]? (18)

Listen to what the Guru said on this matter:

I have recognised this [Khalsa] path as an exalted one. Without base degradation assimilated within.That is why I prevent you from committing [such] sins. (19) That path which adopts Mohhamad, is one of demons.The ways of those lowly ones are not good.Observe how they commit outrages at every opportunity. (20)

I was wondering if any of you have come across other armies historically that were known to refrain from sexual violence against their opponents?

So I finally got to see an Aztec danza group performance the other day. I loved seeing their ceremony. Afterwards, I asked one of the dancers this title question. They told me that "historically they didn't use sticks" is false. That they did use sticks, but the Spaniards took them away because they didn't want the natives to have weapons. I thanked the person and then walked away. But later I realized something. Their claim couldn't be right, because in that same codex image, you see people using sticks to play the teponaztli, and people holding stick like rattles (ayacachtli rattles, I think). So if the Conquistadors didn't want the natives to have anythibg that could be used as weapons, none of the musicians could have been using sticks, not just the huehuetl players.

So this brings me to my initial question. Why do Aztec musicians use sticks nowadays to play the huehuetl, when the codex says they didn't?

During the Mexican American war we literally defeated their army and captured their Capitol. Cuba was given back to the Cubans fir some reason and Puerto Rico was retained as a territory. The Philippines were given up too I think. I feel like at one point in our early history we could have had the western hemisphere mostly under our control because I think at time in the 1800s we were the most advanced militarily and with technology in the Americas.

Can we measure the speed of their disappearance with the "progress" of industrialization? Was the replacement swift or gradual?

I imagine that a complete answer to this question is still up debate; however, I was wondering if there has been any evidence of conflict between the Mykenean Greeks and the historical Trojans - and if not, has there been any academic investigation as to why Troy was adopted as the antagonist in the Hellenic epic cycle.

half of my family came from the Veneto (from what we know today as provinces of Rovigo, Treviso and, especially, Venice). I keep trying to find some readings on how was the ordinary life in this places, in order to get the feeling of how my ancestors lived, but all I ever find is about the city of Venice and La Serenissima. anyone here could give me a hint?

Having just read a passage from Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley's Frankenstein in which it states, "I heard of the discovery of the American hemisphere and wept with Safie over the hapless fate of its original inhabitants," I had to put the book down for a minute and think to myself. This book was written in 1818 by an English author. Was there a general consensus in Europe, or England for that matter, that what happened to the natives in the Americas with European colonization was a tragedy? In other words, by 1818 was it already perceived in public opinion (judging by Shelley's passage as public opinion) that the genocide of the Native Americans was a "hapless fate"? Or this is merely a personal opinion by Shelley and not an overall view held by most English?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the 16th and 17th centuries is when guns really started to to take over. But at that time, the guns were still quite primitive.

Crossbows were way more accurate, cheaper ammo, easier to make, easier to train, and had a shorter reload time.

How much, if any, things that are only in the story because the author Luo Guanzhong lived more than a millennium later?

I had previously understood that it was Sargon of Akkad who brought Semitic culture to the Sumerian city-states through his conquest, but how would this be possible if he was raised in Kish: a Sumerian city-state? Does this imply that parts of Mesopotamia (including Kish) had already adopted Semitic language and culture before his conquest?

**Misspelled "Semitic" in the title, but it won't let me edit it after the fact.

A couple observations spurred this question:

The Shanghai Stock Exchange has a lunch break between 11:30 am and 1 p.m. The Tokyo Stock Exchange has a trading hour break between 11:30 am and 12:30 pm. Is this phenomenon isolated to Asian Markets, why doesn't the NYSE trade this way?

I know that an auto-da-fé doesn't mean someone was burned, but I'm curious about how much of the Spanish Inquisition reached the areas that Spain had control of. Frontier or otherwise. Any responses are appreciated. Thanks!

Hi all!

Had a bit of a google but I couldn't find a great answer.

When you press gang someone into something (i.e. I'm going to shanghai you onto this project), why do we specify Shanghai and not a different location?

Thanks!

This is a years old show now, and I thought someone might have asked already, but I couldn't find any such question when I looked.

In the episode where King Stannis had his daughter burned alive at the sake, we see that his soldiers passively watch the act as it happens, but ultimately abandon the field en masse the very next day.

I'm given to think that this is probably not something that ever happened, historically. Maybe a few individuals deserted - or tried to desert. I'm inclined to think that desertion was considered so egregiously heinous, especially when directed toward a monarch, that it was just not something you'd ever see an entire army do.

But perhaps I'm wrong? Are there any historical examples of an army of soldiers being so collectively disgusted and pissed off by something they saw or heard their ruler do, that they deserted them entirely?

Basically title.

I've heard about when the news reached various parts of Europe, when it reached China, etc. But, I realized I don't have any idea when Indians in India would have learned about the Americas.

So, when did the news reach the subcontinent? How did they react? Were they told about how Europeans were calling the people there Indians? How did they feel about that?

It is often said that European colonial empires exploited the rivalries of local peoples in the regions they colonized. People rarely explain what happened to the communities that cooperated with Europeans as the centuries went on, or after colonialism ended. So, what happened to those communities? Do they have leadership positions in formerly colonial countries today? If not, when and why did they lose those positions?

I often see on the internet people stating how bad the British were with the opium trade and how the Chinese wanted them to stop because so many people became addicted.

I was talking to my father about it, he said (from what he read in Chinese history books) the Qing government were growing opium themselves and profiting from the trade. He said there are a lot of untrue things out there about Chinese history, in this case, this is to fit a narrative to make China look good.

How true is this? I have some doubts as to whether the books he reads are accurate. I've read a little online and watched some documentaries on the opium trade but have not come across this.

He said the British were sourcing higher-quality opium from India so more people chose to buy from the British instead which if true I imagine would explain part of the motivation to stop the British.

Just looking online "Early in the 18th century, the Portuguese found that they could import opium from India and sell it in China at a considerable profit. By 1773 the British had discovered the trade, and that year they became the leading suppliers of the Chinese market"

"In the 16th century the Portuguese became aware of the lucrative medicinal and recreational trade of opium into China, and from their factories across Asia chose to supply the Canton System, to satisfy both the medicinal and the recreational use of the drug. By 1729 the Yongzheng Emperor had criminalised the new recreational smoking of opium in his empire." it seems it was relatively early on when it was criminalised, at least before it really took off. It doesn't seem to make sense the Emperor would ban opium if they were making money from it.

As the title says. I looked through the rules but couldn't find anything, not sure if I missed it (the rules section is quite extensive) or if it's missing. What is the policy on requests for book recommendations? Thanks

Like

I am learning more and more about mesopotamia and have started learning cuneiform too, so i was curios if theres any complete version of the Epic of Gilgamesh since i would like to read it? And if not, where can i find the most complete version of it to read? Any specific author?

Lately I have been wondering if the peoples who inhabited ancient greece were generally listening to the same stories over and over, for very long periods of time? My own guess is probably not, but It seems that a lot of "famous" scenes from say the Illiad or various myths about gods are depicted over and over again in the art that is produced from that time.

So are we currently in possession of various artpieces depicting unknown (to us) stories? Or was it simply because some of the stories were so well known (classics if you will) in that time, that they were chosen to be depicted, rather than lesser known stories? - It would kind of make sense, since the most famous stories were probably the most likely to survive until today, hence we are able to recognise them in the art. This ofcourse, is only true if we are not in possesion of a lot of art depicting scenes we simply don't recognise.