Cavalry has existed across many cultures, but in general, when armies moved on horses, and then camped for the night, what did they do with their horses? Did they tie them down to stakes? Posts? Were they grouped together at night or did soldiers stay with their own horse? Were there differences in how a European or East Asian or Middle Eastern army would do this? I'm thinking pre-15th century.

If you only have information on one specific culture / time period / army, that would still be much appreciated.

Thanks!

Seneca's essay, De vita Beata, has him responding to the charges of hypocrisy leveled against him. Specifically, critics lambasted his wealth and displays of luxury.

He characterizes one such criticism as: "How is it that your school of slave boys is decked out in expensive uniforms?"

What sort of slave school was this? I know that some slaves were educated. Slaves might become doctors, scribes, etc, which required education. Their services might be rented out by the owner for a profit.

But was Seneca doing this on a grand scale, creating a highly educated slave labor force through his own personal school?

Any context welcome.

Thanks!

​

Previous

Today:

AskHistorians is filled with questions seeking an answer. Saturday Spotlight is for answers seeking a question! It’s a place to post your original and in-depth investigation of a focused historical topic.

Posts here will be held to the same high standard as regular answers, and should mention sources or recommended reading. If you’d like to share shorter findings or discuss work in progress, Thursday Reading & Research or Friday Free-for-All are great places to do that.

So if you’re tired of waiting for someone to ask about how imperialism led to “Surfin’ Safari;” if you’ve given up hope of getting to share your complete history of the Bichon Frise in art and drama; this is your chance to shine!

Compare to infantry or non combat support. Please give context to how this has changed both before WWII, in the WWI infancy of air combat. As well as how it's changed post WWII into the Cold War and beyond.

On one hand, some of the Bloody 100th USAAF were shot on site or sent to labor camps. There was animosity towards them for their role in bombing German civilians.

On the other hand, Franz Stigler famously escorted a burning B-17 piloted by Charlie Brown back to friendly lines. The two remained lifelong friends after the war. https://youtu.be/Tc6dwGvm2pY?si=rlf4F-Jq40trwkzN

POW TREATMENT:

Douglas Bader, a personal hero of mine, an amputee RAF fighter pilot, returned to combat after injury and bailed out of a crash over Germany. He was treated to a friendly dinner with Luftwaffe pilots, a spare prosthetic leg was allowed to be airdropped by RAF (oddly enough, en route for a bombing run). After multiple escape attempts, he was never really punished, although they threatened to take away his prosthetics. Incredibly kind treatment, considering the usual consequence, even for pilots in the "Great Escape" was execution by firing squad.

Bader was even allowed to sit in the cockpit of Colonel Adolf Galland's personal fighter. The two remained lifelong friends after the war. https://youtu.be/mGxO31bw_SM?si=3kEb-neTfo01EloT

Previous discussions: https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/nstyo0/what_was_interment_like_for_allied_airmen_in_ww2/

https://www.reddit.com/r/MilitaryHistory/comments/xie4dz/if_a_fighter_pilot_and_an_enemy_fighter_pilot/

How much of this was chivalry, and how much was intelligence gathering? How does their treatment compare to other officers of equivalent rank? Or certainly the difference between a German capturing RAF vs. Japan capturing an American bombardier?

BEYOND WWII: John Mccain was famously tortured as a POW in the Vietnam war. U2 Pilot Gary Powers was shot down over Russia, sent to a labor camp, then traded for a captured KGB agent.

From there through the Gulf War and beyond, it seems that a relatively quick prisoner exchange is the norm for high value pilots, still treated better than infantry.

Okay maybe I am just misunderstanding this, or there were political reasons, but with the Drake Passage being so dangerous, and the Strait of Magellan being slow and cumbersome it seems like everyone would much prefer leaving Western Europe and going south around cape of good hope then taking Indian Ocean to India, China, Japan, etc.

But from what I can tell, going west and south around South America seemed to be the main route, at least for the English. Am I just wrong there? If not, what was the reason?

I have always thought that slaves on slave ships had a loincloth or similar during their journey for their destination. All drawings, movies and pictures I have seen has also lived up to this thought. I saw the movie Amistad last week and noticed that every slave on the ship were completely naked. Was it common for them to be totally nude or did they get something to cover themself with?

What about the slaves of other type of slave ships as well? (Ottomans, irish, vikings etc)

While all formerly communist countries experienced economic troubles in the 90s, places like Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia or the Baltics were able to recover from the initial shock fairly quickly, and then start growing again in the mid-90s. On the other hand, Russian economy was in a complete freefall for all of the 90s, only really stabilizing in mid 2000s. To this day Russia economically lags behind most of its former communist allies.

Why was the transition so much harder for Russia?

There’s state propaganda, and then there’s the popular reaction (as well as the gray area in between). What was the German popular reaction to the defeat of Poland in 1939, as it was Germany’s first big military conquest? Were people drinking and dancing in the streets? Was it more subdued? In what arenas? Factories, bierhalls, universities etc? I’m especially interested in first hand accounts: diaries and letters. Likewise, are there any scholarly articles or books written on this subject?

Hey, I am just looking for a proper answer for this question, because for my knowledge. Italy prior becoming a Capitalistic society. They were under feudalism. And the mafia as we know it never existed back then.

Of the East Asian polities that can be considered to be in the Sinosphere, Japan seems unique in that there were no attempts to introduce eunchs into the harem of the Emperor or Shogun. Instead, roles that would be filled by eunchs are done by female servants instead.

A theory I saw was that Japan never really got the knack of castration without killing the victim though I find it reductive, so the Japanese simply used women. But was there any attempt by a Japanese ruler to introduce male eunchs for the harem?

Thinking mainly about Rome, but eagles are widely considered a symbol of monarchy power. With the double-headed one going to the "more powerful" empires.

So, why did it become the defining mark of kings and emperors?

And when that happened?

https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~321013~90090153

Edit: Mugalie instead of Moglie They are north of "Tangut" CHina, Afghanistan and Tibet and only a little south of Lake Baigal with some Mongolian sounding names seemingly transliterated through others like Chinese like "Selinga" - Selenge, east of others like "Pays du Saindohan" - Sain Han, and west of some like Mungat-Minghat, Karual- Haruul, I'm not sure but to the south is also Targanskie which might be related to the Mongolian word Targan or plump etc.

To the Immediate west of Blonde Mugalie is Mogols Noirs which google translate says is 'Black Mongols'.

In another part they also use " Mugal Grande" for Northern India presumably the Mughals 1 but surely the cartographers knew that Tibet, Afghanistan etc were well north of India, and wouldn't seperate it via Turkestan etc from the rest so it seems like the southern most "Partie du Mogol" at the bottom is refering to India/Mughal Empire.

There used to be a section in passports listing out the countries for whom they were valid. See an example below:
https://www.papertotravel.com/MP-625/photo/11888

Why were there such restrictions? Would the holder be refused entry if he travelled to a country which his passport didn’t say it was valid for?

I'm curious to see how the war to end all wars affected population statistics. It's a very interesting subject for me

Hello there! Currently watching “The Patriot” and I cannot understand how the line infantry strategy was a thing that stayed for so long ? Like how the occidental generals took so much time to adapt ? Seeing how the guerilla war is so much more efficient, I don’t see how they could think “yeah I’m going to put all my army in the open field without cover, and it’s going to work”, same for the soldiers, being in the first line was basically a death sentence. To sum up how such madness could’ve stayed the norm for so long ?

I've noticed a wider narrative when talking to people who live in countries that were formerly occupied by the Ottoman Empire.

They argue that their land is so economically weak, so underdeveloped because they were ruled by the Ottoman Empire for hundreds of years.

This argument is very prevalent in balkan countries that were once part of the Empire. Many argue its resources were exploited to enrich other parts of the Empire like it's Arab holdings or Anatolia.

Even Turkish citiizens living in Turkey, which is placed in modern day anatolia, argue that their land was purposefully underdeveloped by the Ottomans in favour of enriching other places in the Empire. Their wider narrative is that Turkey was relatively backwards until the guidance and reforms of of Attaturk.

Other examples include citizens from Egypt arguing that the Ottomans purposefully neglected their development until they recieved their own autonomy from their rule. They usually cite Napoleon's invasion as proof that Ottoman Egypt was backwards and underdeveloped, that Egyptians of the time were surprised at how advance the French were.

I understand there is a lot of conflicting narratives going on but how true are these claims? Did the Ottoman Empire act as any other Colonial power at the time and essentially exploit all the resources of their vast empire and left it's citizens nothing else? If so where did the resources go? Simply the Capital Istanbul and no where else?

It's hard for me to reconcile these claims while also notice the relative weakness of the Ottoman state in the 18th and 19th century. I feel like the truth is significantly more complex but the Ottomans are convenient scapegoats used to explain the issues these countries are suffering from today.

During the occupation of iraq, US forces built a military base on the remains of babylon. Why was this location choosen? Did no one notify the responsible of the historical importance of the site? How big was the damage sustained?

I would think so, considering that the raids by Honghuzi bandits, which were slowing it down, would have stopped.

I see a lot of arguments from philosophers and debaters like Bob the Builder, who claims that the crusades didn’t invade Muslim land, they liberated Christian land where the majority of the people in those land were Christians. To anyone who’s knowledgeable on this subject how false or true is this?

I've often seen it repeated that the daimyō and the shōguns used female bodyguards to guard their wives, concubines and other women of their household. However, the answers in the FAQ about women in samurai-ruled Japan don't seem to mention this. Did the female bodyguards really exist or where they just another pophistory myth about samurai?

This question is in regards to Britain's and especially churchills plans for dealing with the aftermath of world war II.

The division of Germany including the bizarre confederation of the danube is quite well known. As is operation unthinkable. But what were other suggestions by the British regarding the end of the war?

This pertains to both borders as well as the politics within and between post-war entities or the nascent united nations. Regarding border changes for example were there further suggestions for new borders like in Germany? Is there any Churchill-plan for the borders of East-Asia or the Middle East for example?

And in regards to politics; I know that the British were the most "merciful,, party during the nuremberg trials, although it should rather be called opportunistic, as the former nazis, just as Admiral Dönitz' flensburg government, were supposed to be used against the Soviets. This makes me think similar approaches might have been suggested for other parts of the world.

I don't know much about the plans for the various colonies, but I assume there were plans to keep India for example within London's control and regain the Asian colonies lost to Japan.

Finally there's the percentages agreement regarding control of Eastern Europe. I'm struggling to imagine what a 50:50 influence regarding these states would have looked like. How did Churchill imagine this to work out?

I would be very happy if you could help me out with this. I know world war II questions can be draining, especially on the Internet, and I usually try to avoid these discussions, but this question has been on my mind for a while and I would appreciate any answers. Thank you!

Apologies if the secondary part of this question gets into non-historic territory as the song is only about 24 years old. But, as a long term fan of Eminem from when I was a teenager (when the MM LP was new), I'm very curious about how songs like this were perceived and how these perceptions have changed. Many of Em's contemporaries who similarly had incendiary lyrical content, think Kid Rock, Korn, Limp Bizkit, ICP, etc, are thought of very derisively now, while Eminem himself is revered as a pop music icon.

On the one hand, I know there was a lot of conversation from the late 80s to the 00's about obscene music and content in Eminem's music was a part of that, but I'm also interested in whether there has been any change in the perception of how music critics and popular culture over the years. Music critics are presumably less interested in obscenity, but might be more concerned with things like the #MeToo movement over the years.

Whenever one enters a museum or hears of a statue it is always one if extraordinarily high quality, with a great amount of detail added to the statue. Just about every statue I have personally seen is of great detail with no noticeable errors or mistakes made in them.

Surely however this can't be the case for EVERY statue. Individuals would have to practice and such at some stage as an apprentice, or even a master would have to test out new techniques. Do we have any evidence of these practice statues? Do any survive, and if so why are they never displayed in museums.