As I understand, money was always the problem for the 4th crusade. To pay the venetian for the ship to egypt they went as far as to siege a catholic Zara for them which result in excommunication. And then again in the famous sack of constantinople. But if they willing to go to such length as to anger the pope to make end meet, and capable enough to take the greatest city in the world.

Instead of acting as venice attack dogs, Couldn't they just... take venice itself? And all their problem will solve itself. They will have the ships and the money. And can go on crusading in egypt as they originally plan.

Hello dear historians for context the battle of Malpaquet happend in the year of 1709 during the war of the spanish succession between the forces of the grand alliance under the duke of Marlborought and the french forces under the duke of Villars.

In the last weeks ive had numerous discussion about this topic. But couldnt come to a general accepted conclusion.

In my opinion it was a costly grand alliance victory. The french forces fled the filed and Mons, the desired outcome for this battle, was aquired.

Factors like the heavy losses of the grand alliance and the relatively good condition of the French army after the battle, which made further actions, like the immediate prusuit of the enemy, difficult or even later events promoted by the outcome of the battle. Are in my point of view not decisive enought arguments for a French victory or a draw.

So I would like to hear you opinions about this event. I hope you can provide more inside in this matter and a satisfactory conclusion.

Overly Sarcastic Productions' video on the Minoan civilization claims what I said in the title: that the Minoans either worshiped bulls or held them in great cultural importance; that they were antagonistic with their contemporary Greeks, were pirates raiding Greek settlements in the mainland, and practiced human sacrifice, the last of which was remembered as King Minos requiring sacrifices; and that there was an invasion or some conflict in which the Greeks invaded Crete, causing the fall of an organized Minoan state, which was remembered as Theseus slaying the Minotaur. He also claims that the labyrinth in the Minotaur myth was inspired by the Minoan palace. How true is all this? I think there is a gap of multiple centuries, perhaps close to a millennium, between the actual events in the mid-2nd millennium BCE and when the myths were recorded.

He also mentions that the Minoans were more egalitarian in terms of gender roles, or even had a matriarchal society/ruling class/priestly class because there are a lot of high status women depicted with servants around them. How true is that?

Why was the Battle of Rzhev often forgotten about despite being what I would consider the bloodiest battle in the whole war which has much higher casualties the Stalingrad? The Germans also suffered heavier losses around Rzhev than they did in Stalingrad which contributed heavily into them losing the war.

The book (can be found here: https://www.amazon.com/Letters-J-D-Rockefeller-his-son-ebook/dp/B08HM8G5VD) seems apocryphal. This edition seems to be translated from Chinese to English, as the original book was in Chinese.

However, wouldn't the letters have originally been in English, the Rockefellers' native language during their lives? Why is there not an original English version from which the Chinese version was published? How did the authors come about these letters, which have been labeled as "never before published"? Is there a historical archive where I can read these letters without relying on the book's translation?

Has anyone from the Rockefeller family expressed claims of veracity or skepticism about the contents of this book?

Is this book (https://www.amazon.com/Dear-Father-Son-Correspondence-Rockefeller/dp/0823215598) any better?

Further, what would r/askhistorians recommend as the most accurate work on the history/life of the Rockefeller family accessible to a layman?

So under the Carolignians, we have East Frankia, West Frankia and Italy theoretically all subject to the suzerainty of one recognized emperor, sometimes under one and sometimes under multiple kings but part of one "empire". Eventually the Ottonians more or less permanently united the titles of King of Italy, King of Germany and the previous title of Emperor. Fast forward and eventually the kingdoms of Italy and East Frankia/Germany are the two primary constituents of a Holy Roman Empire. And while the Holy Roman Emperor has a universal ceremonial primacy in the Christian world, he is no longer sovereign in the Western former Carolingian empire. Instead, the Holy Roman Empire is now a well-defined territorial region corresponding to kingdoms that the Holy Roman Emperor traditionally holds. (Ok and messiness with Bohemia and Burgundy.) Now I know that this was a very gradual de facto process but de jure, when was this recognized by those in the West or in the East? Were there intermediate de jure stages? Is it possible to at least give bounds on a fuzzy range when this change happened? Sorry, I know my language is imprecise at best. Thanks in advance to anyone who answers this.

 I am doing research that revolves around the comparison of western economies and politics vs. Roman economy. How come the roman empire (particularly it's economy and laws) are used as a reference or comparison to validate and emphasize the influence or impact of another society/civilization. In Morley's book, The Roman Empire: the roots of imperialism, he mentions that "modern empires drew on Rome above all for their iconography" and that Rome is considered a "worthy comparison for a modern European power" (Morley 4).

 I wanted to ask if anyone had an idea where to get some informative primary sources about any aspect regarding roman economics or politics. Do you guys have any recommendations? Secondary sources would also be appreciated.

What parts of Rome's economy structure is similar to modern-day western societies and what are the differences?

 What part of Rome's political/legislative process are similar to modern-day western societies and what are the differences?

Did Constantine kill his family? Was there persecution if pagans for the sake of conversion to Christianity? Why aren't there clear history around that topics. How did he become the emperor?

Or, more accurately, historical examples of negative attitudes to gender-nonconformity and sexual variance in cultures NOT influenced by Abrahamic faiths. What a mouthful!

It's so hard to talk about this stuff without it turning into word salad, but here goes. Please interpret charitably.

I'm aware that modern constructs of homosexuality-as-identity are sociohistorically specific, that behavior=/=identity, and that projecting contemporary sexual /gender identities across cultures and time is not the thing. But I am gonna take it as a given that just as homosexual behavior has existed all through human history, so have individuals on the upper end of the Kinsey scale, and so have trans/nonbinary/"third gender" people in various sociohistorically specific identity configurations (heemaneh, fa'afine, hijra and so on...). If you can't swallow this starting premise, please disengage.

I'm also aware that historical homophobia is inextricable from colonialism and that generally speaking, things got a lot worse for same-sex-attracted and gendernonconforming (nonconforming to colonial eyes, at least) people after colonialism, pretty much all over the world.

I'm asking about negative attitudes towards what we might broadly refer to as "queer" peoples/practices in pre-colonial societies, or any societies that never came into contact with the Abrahamic faiths to begin with.

It's surprisingly difficult to find examples. Most of the discourse is geared towards refuting the pernicious idea that homosexuality is a modern perversion, a Western import, or "unnatural". So the emphasis is on affirming the existence and acceptance of a rich array of genders and sexualities in non-Western cultures.

But it can't all be love and acceptance and sacred shamans, can it? I mean, Leviticus can't really be the historical root of all homophobia in all societies everywhere and everywhen (again, using "homophobia" really broadly here, interpret charitably please!).

My assumption is that attitudes to same-sex behaviors/proclivities and gender-variance throughout human history have run the gamut from sacred to shameful to tolerated to "appropriate in certain contexts but not others" etc. So I'm seeking examples of the "shameful" aspect in cultures that have never been tarred by the brush of Leviticus, so to speak.

https://imgur.com/a/O6sJP6U

I’m curious what Russian armour looked like during the Middle Ages. Was it different from western armour in Middle Ages? I was looking up st Alexander Nevsky and he seems to have a blend of Byzantine style armour with some Asian influences (mongol influence more specifically)

I've read that in feudal times (I'm interested in 14th century england) the concept of owning land didn't exist. All property belonged to the king and the lords or clergy rented the property and the peasants rented the property from the lord or clergy. What if someone was a merchant and was suddenly rich, would he ask the lord of the manor for a bigger house and pay the rent? He couldn't buy the house? And when the merchant died did the right to rent the house pass down to his children? Also, if a lord wanted to grant one of his subjects a house without rent would the house be in the subject's name? Could he do so or did he have to give a reason as to why he is giving him the house rent free?

While I am aware of the reactions seen at Dachau, I was wondering how allied soldiers reacted towards the other concentration camps. Were there any other incidences of executions of German officers? What was the emotional impact of the liberations for Allied Soldiers?

I’ve seen several sources claim that Saddam Hussein wanted to draw the Israelis into the war and launched missiles at Israel.

What was he hoping to accomplish? Turn a regional conflict into a religious war or would Israeli support of the coalition tanked the support of the Arab countries who supported them?

Were there in late medieval mercenary companies from the 14th and 15th centuries also some women ? If so, did they disguise as men ? I am asking especially about mercenary companies from northern and central Italy.

I was reading on Mughal India economy and how their products were very highly demanded in Europe such as in textiles.

This makes me think about the Ottomans who lasted longer and were larger. What was the impact of the Ottoman economy on the world stage?

From what ive read anglo saxon england was overwhelmingly made up of small villages practicing subsistence farming. By the time william came along and took the place over what was the extent of urban settlements (town/ cities)? Was there thriving towns with trade, advanced architecture etc? Did it achieve any signifiant urban life by 1066?

The debate between Adi Shankar and Mandana-Misra is a supposed famous debate between two indian philosophers that changed the course of Indian philosophy. Do historians believe that this debate really happened? If it did happen, what would the debate have looked like format wise, and what topic would they have debated?

How and when did becoming white, upper class and from the first world became so important?

This question might be a multifaceted question based from historical answers but I would like to break it down to the following?

1.) When and how did becoming white became so important in history? What led it that if you are white, you are like part of the “superior” race?

2.) I understand money rules the world, but was there a significant time in history that becoming part of the upper class guarantees you your importance? Was it during the time when the concept of money was invented or when history started using money for power and influence?

3.) Historically, how did the “first world” or “developed countries” come to be? Is there any common denominators in why they came to be aside from their economy?

Also, why are there some countries that developed fasted than others historically?

Any additional thoughts?

When looking through rankings of public universities in the US, there seems to be a notable dearth of high-ranking public schools in the northeast. California, the South, and even the Midwest are better represented. This is in contrast to the many great private colleges in the northeast.

Is this a real phenomenon, and if so, what explains it? Were public universities historically out-competed by the likes of Harvard and Yale? Was there too much elitism to invest in public education?

Thanks!

Hey there! I recently found out about Zhao Feiyan, a dancing girl that worked her way up to empress during the Han dynasty.

Im looking for some resources to learn about her (or people with a similar story to hers). I'm not big on scholarly articles because Im not a historian and have a tiny attention span, so I prefer something like a easily digestible book or a biopic or something.

Do you have any recommendations for that? Is this even the right place to ask?

Thanks in advance!

I am aware that there might be examples of issues where actions of US military by themselves may be involved (like during Vietnam war).

However, I can't think of an issue involving a US ally becoming such a huge domestic issue.

It seems in the United States that over time benefits for retired people have become less generous over time…social security ages keep creeping up, pensions disappear, retiree health benefits go away….is this an actual historical trend over the course of the 20th and early 21st centuries or is this just my impression? Are benefits actually more generous today than 70 years ago? If not, why?

Thanks!

Wikipedia states that "A total of 31 revolts occurred from 1415 to 1424 against Ming rule before the rebellion of Lê Lợi in 1418."

First and foremost, I'm confused that the 31 revolts are said to span from 1415 to 1424 but also to have occurred before Lê Lợi's rebellion in 1418, which seems contradictory to me. Is that a mistake in the Wikipedia article?

Secondly, 31 revolts sounds like a very high number to me. Is such a perception accurate? And if so, was there something that motivated so many revolts?

There has not been enough time for humans to evolve and adapt to all the many environmental changes happening in the last few thousand years. Therefore, I think many of us, especially if we lack a strong sense of family and personal connections that grounds us, might still expect a lot from our relationships and try to create our own "tribe" even with strangers online.

So I'm curious how to make sense of our changing relationships with each other. What does it mean to be someone's romantic partner, child/parent, relative, friend, neighbor, coworker, doctor, Twitter follower, voted-for politician, pizza delivery person, Redditor who leaves a nice comment on your post, etc.? Do we feel the same way about the Amazon seller or even the local baker as we did back in the day when we lived in a small village and the baker was someone you knew very well (you probably knew his whole family) and the only person in the city who sold you bread?

If we are expected not to feel strong feelings about most of our relationships, seeing people only as means to an end, how is this affecting our mental health and general well-being? Do we feel we belong?

In short, I'm looking for good books on changes in human relationships over time, books that cover a lot of ground in a way that's interesting and understand for a person with a college degree but not necessarily in history, sociology, anthropology, etc. Books on how relationships have changed over time, from back in agricultural societies, to the effects of industrial revolution, to the present time.

Prefer science-based, not opinion-based books.