Datasets:

Pavithree

/

askHistorians

like 0

{ "a_id": [ "d1g8qvi" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "It's difficult to comment on the accuracy of a work that runs to 10,000+ pages. I've only read (part of) *The Age of Faith*. It's very out of date. He's not a specialist in what he's writing about. He really likes pithy lines of analysis that seem archaic to me even for someone writing in 1950. And it's about as Eurocentric as you would expect for a series entitled *The Story of Civilization* the final six books of which only mention the rest of the world in passing, if at all.\n\nHe's a great writer, but I wouldn't read it for \"accuracy\"." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d57b2ea" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "The plate armour was combined with traditional (read: pre-Western contact) Japanese armour styles to better protect the wearer from musket balls and other various related firings. I talk about armour development in Japan [here](_URL_1_), with this relevant line:\n\n > Their armour was more to deal with arrows loosed from bows and spears, and later on against musket balls, [...] It's worth noting that, upon contact with the west and the advent and adoption of firearms, [Japanese] smiths developed armour to better stop musket balls. A good idea of how this was implemented is seen in nanban gusoku ^[[link](_URL_0_)], where you can see how a combination of the strong metal plate seen in Western armour is integrated with more traditional style armouring in the limb guards.\n\nSo yes, some did wear this plate armour - as to their effectiveness, it depends on what you're comparing it to. To prior-Western contact armours, or against what weaponry, for example." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://old.vcm.asemus.museum/uploads/images/VO_5258_11.JPG", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3asgc6/during_the_middle_ages_how_did_the_armor_of/csfqs0e?st=iqhbkv66&sh=591c47ae" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "f7n6304" ], "score": [ 6 ], "text": [ "So what I think you're getting at is that it seems in the fragmented political and judicial landscape of post-Roman Europe, it would be very difficult to safely move revenues collected from one place to another.\n\nAnd you know what? You're absolutely right. It was incredibly difficult.\n\nThe Roman Empire, for all its provincial specificities, was a largely coherent economic area which would not be matched in Europe until the european integration process began in the wake of the Second World War. In the period in between these two very distant moments of unity, european political organizations were very fragmented. I'm going to first examine aristocratic landholding in Europe between more or less the sixth and tenth centuries (a world which I am more or less familiar with) and in a sort of addendum compare this to the very different kind world which the Roman Senatorial Class existed in (a world which I'm less familiar with). \n\nWhile modern scholarship rejects notions of Rome's catastrophic downfall and instead prefers to examine continuity in many institutions after the Empire's end (and many of my own answers on this sub insist on this) it is important to keep in mind that these continuities were not uniform. In different parts of the former Empire, the governing classes preserved different elements of Roman institutions as they adapted to the needs of their own part of the continent. So the story of the post-Roman transformation is, somewhat surprisingly, both a story of preservation and radical change. And one of the most radical of changes was the inability of landowners to diversify the lands they owned. \n\nFar-flung estate ownership declined rapidly as the Empire unraveled in the fifth and sixth centuries, with the last holdouts (predictably) among what was left of the old senatorial aristocracy in Central Italy, who might be expected to hold estates as far as Sicily in the first half of the sixth century. They too, however, would retrench into more regional holdings as war pitting the Eastern Empire against the Italian Kingdom ravaged the peninsula midway through the 500s. Setting aside the Eastern Empire (where political dynasties could be expected to own land in or near Constantinople in addition to their region of origin) far-flung absentee land ownership became entirely anomalous, only ever practiced exclusively by one or two of the most anomalously wealthy dynasties in a given kingdom. In Italy especially, but also in the urbanized portions of Gaul and Germania, the disappearance of a large governmental superstructure pushed political and social leadership towards local political organizations centered in cities, and as a consequence saw it both desirable and necessary to localize their landholdings. This was, in many respects, part of a broader transformation that would permeate to their very identity of what it meant to be aristocratic in Europe. Indeed, by the eight century it is impossible to trace the lineage of nearly all the most prominent political dynasties in Europe, and yet they can be found exerting their rights and privileges in urban councils much like their Roman forefathers did four centuries earlier. Land localization was as technique which allowed them to adapt to the new political landscape. \n\nLand was wealth and wealth was land, this much is true of any pre-industrial society. But Post-Roman Western Europe is interesting in that land also featured as a building block of state organization. For as much as we can lament the incorrect use of the word \"Feudalism,\" and as much as we dislike the idealized hierarchy of feudal ownership, it is undeniable that the Post-Roman period saw a shift away from the politics of taxation and towards the politics of land. Of course, this was never a total shift, nor was land ownership itself unknown or irrelevant in Ancient Rome: medieval monarchs could and did still raise taxes, just as Roman Aristocrats relied on their land to generate the income they spent in politics. But in the medieval period land ownership takes on a dimension of responsibility and privilege unknown in the Roman period, and this encouraged retrenchment and direct management of estates, discouraging absenteeism. This was only strengthened by administrative officials of the state, such as they could be said to exist, who could no longer rely on taxes as the Roman Proconsuls did in their Provinces; instead they would be asked to rely on whatever they could commandeer from local landowners as well as whatever lands was given directly to them, thus creating a space for the generation of local power bases that they could use to threaten the very political system that appointed them in the first place. If we know nothing of the medieval period, is is that it was very unstable. \n\nWhile I am a medievalist and as such will spend fewer words on the Roman Empire, a comparison might still be worthwhile. Indeed, it wouldn't be accurate to, as I perhaps have done with my choice of wording above, depict the Roman Empire as the complete opposite of whatever system existed in the period that followed its collapse. \n\nWhile the Roman period saw both many raw materials and finished goods transit from one end of the Mediterranean to another (mostly consisting of grain the government needed to feed its legions as well as the urban grain dole, with a much smaller but still non-negligible quantity of goods also moved around by individual merchants for sale in the marketplace) there were still factors that discouraged Roman Senators from purchasing estates just anywhere. In fact, the favored regions for senatorial investment were Southern Italy, Sicily, and the Province of Africa (referring to the region around Carthage, that is to say much of modern Tunisia). While there were certainly Roman aristocratic dynasties that also held estates in other parts of the Empire, it was Southern Italy, Sicily, and Africa that consistently housed the core of all the greatest dynasties' landowning portfolios. \n\nWe have little information on the specific mechanics by which wealthy Romans collected their agricultural wealth, there are some clear characteristics of the regions where they preferred to invest that we can examine: Southern Italy, Sicily, and Africa are all located on a straight geographic axis, making it easy to move people and resources between them; they were also heavily romanized, with well-established institutions upholding Roman laws (and Senatorial privileges); and of course it didn't hurt that they were very fertile regions. Thus the clan-like nature of the Roman senatorial dynasties meant that trusted family members could be counted on to oversee these estates without griping about being too far from the capital, so the *Pater Familias* could trust that wealth generated on these estates could safely stay on the estate itself. Locating estates in highly romanized regions also meant that wealth kept locally could be used to purchase many of the same material luxuries that would be available in Rome. Lastly, good political connections meant that the Senatorial class could easily enter contracts to deliver grain to the dole or to the legions, allowing them to collect payments while staying in the capital. The enormous consumption of goods and raw materials in Rome itself also meant that much of what was produced in a faraway estate could be converted into cash by transporting it to a Roman marketplace, and thus closely overseeing its liquidation. While no method was foolproof, and many goods could certainly be stolen or lost, extensive estate ownership was expressly thought out to compensate: revenues lost in some place would be compensated up by revenues generated somewhere else. \n\nMy main source for all that I have posted is Chris Wickham's \"Framing the Early Middle Ages,\" which is not only an immense work of comparative history on the four hundred years after the fall of the Western Empire in Europe, but also does a great job of examining the conditions preceding the Empire's transformation. Regarding estate holding in the Roman period, Wickham cites \"Western Aristocracies and Imperial Court, AD 364-425\" by John Matthews, in addition to two works by French historians, one published in Italian by François Jacques titled \"L'ordine senatorio attraverso la crisi del III secolo,\" and another (in French) by Mireille Corbier on Proconsular Africa titled, \"Les familles clarissimes d'Afrique Proconsulaire.\" \n\nRegarding instead Late Roman and Early Medieval landholding, Wickham points to \"Transformation and Survival in the Western Senatorial Aristocracy, c. A.D. 400–700\" by S. J. B. Barnish, and \"The Later Roman Empire, 284-602\" by A. H. M. Jones. Another source cited of which I am partial to (and clearly biased towards) is the Italian Francesco Marazzi's \"Il conflitto fra Leone III Isaurico e il papato e il \"definitivo\" inizio del Medioevo a Roma.\"" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "czzs618" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "WRT Korea this idea of the \"hermit kingdom\" is because of a Eurocentric worldview.\n\nKorea into the 19th century had a flourishing relationship, both diplomatic and commercial, with both Beijing and Edo. After the Jurchens and the Chinese merged into a single actor in the mid-17th century as the former conquered the latter, these were the only two neighbors of Korea that actually mattered. China, Japan, and the Jurchens were also the only neighbors that had mattered much for Korea ever since around 1387. So \"the hermit kingdom\" wasn't an isolationist hermit kingdom at all, **it was a kingdom that followed established diplomatic and commercial protocols with established neighbors.**\n\nIt is true that early 15th century Korea was more \"international\" than early 19th century Korea in many aspects but not all. For example, early Choson Korea had some form of contact with Thailand and into the 15th century there was a small Muslim community that eventually assimilated into the wider Korean population. But Korea's ties with Thailand or even the Ryukyus were totally inconsequential. What really mattered was that an amicable relationship was met with their immediate neighbors.\n\nSo really \"the hermit kingdom\" just did what it had been doing for centuries - maintaining good relationships with important neighbors they already knew. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "czthlf4", "cztoizx" ], "score": [ 39, 11 ], "text": [ "I've had a sniff around and there isn't very much information on this, for reasons I'll suggest at the end, but: \n\nThe Telegraph [reports the Royal Horticultural Society](_URL_0_) (I can't find the original source) saying that (I think) the allotments produced 1.3 million tonnes of food during the war, while stating that food imports in 1941 were 14.65 million tonnes, albeit that that was half of what we were importing in the 1930s. Even if we read that figure as being yearly (it isn't clear what the Telegraph actually meant to write), it's clear that the actual effect the Dig for Victory campaign was having on food shortages was small as it did very little to affect the UK's reliance on imports. \n\nAs you'll know, many foods (along with clothing, petrol and other things) were rationed in the UK from the start of the war until, in some cases, the mid-50s. As such, the government had a central control over products that were in shortage (meat, butter and so on). I think it's telling that there weren't any such controls on vegetables.\n\nBy 1942, the Ministry for Food was bolstered by large amounts of food being imported through Lend-Lease from the USA. The MoF also subsidised many foodstuffs mostly consumed by the poor (wheat, oats, bread, meat, potatoes and eggs) to the tune of £145m a year. Similarly, no government subsidy for vegetables. \n\nTo me this suggests that there wasn't a major shortage of vegetables at any point during the war, which may be due to the Dig for Victory campaigns. But I think it would be hard to tell, as by the very nature of the DfV campaign it was small-scale production at the local level with no-one tracking it. ", "You might be interested in a past post on the topic:\n\n* [_Did 'Dig For Victory' and allotment gardens and parks make a real contribution to the war effort in the UK? Did it turn out to have been necessary (could we have survived without having bothered)?_](_URL_0_) \n^(18 Jul 2015 | 62 comments) \n^(/u/kieslowskifan gives a detailed answer on the topic.) " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/9996180/How-Dig-for-Victory-campaign-helped-win-the-War.html" ], [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3dqkio/did_dig_for_victory_and_allotment_gardens_and/ct7wg4c" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dwjstqf" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "More can always be said about the topic, and linking old answers is not meant to discourage anyone from writing new replies. But while waiting for those to be written, the OP might be interested in reading [this thread](_URL_0_) with an interesting comment by u/wumao" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2nwnp3/historians_could_you_explain_how_the_chinese/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cruyze4" ], "score": [ 13 ], "text": [ "The engineering is generally less at fault that the construction/implementation. A big problem for the Soviet Union was in the quality of materials they used. In particular during the pre-WWII period the absurdly high quotas and emphasis on Stakhanovites (essentially glorifying the most productive worker) led to a failure of quality control. A prominent example is the massive steel mill at Magnitigorsk (intended to surpass the American one in Gary, Indiana), which eventually met its quotas through phantom production and also through the creation of subpar steel which was generally unable to meet the requirements for construction of things like buildings, railroads, and weapons. Construction in the USSR remained shoddy throughout the Soviet period due to the emphasis on quantity over quality, and a fear of what failing to meet expectations would lead to. A great book that looks at many of these issues is [*Magnetic Mountain* by Stephen Kotkin](_URL_0_), it uses the steel mill at Magnitigorsk as a microcosm of Soviet society in a very compelling and interesting way." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://books.google.com/books/about/Magnetic_Mountain.html?id=em3_-M7H0UgC&hl=en" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cv650nk", "cv6x7hb" ], "score": [ 17, 2 ], "text": [ " > What on earth do they mean by \"moral\" tests? Is this simply a criminal background check, or was it also used for subjective elimination of people the recruiter decided were undesirable?\n\nThat sounds vague enough to provide cover for disallowing anyone involved in adultery, homosexuality, gambling, drugs, even drinking, if the powers that be so desired. I hadn't really thought about it until you asked. \n\nGoing off of the above, \"conduct unbecoming an officer\" is a phrase commonly associated with courts-martial. How (if at all) were officers' codes of conduct more strict than those of enlisted men? ", "In the US, IIRC taking volunteers shut down in 1943. After that you had to be drafted (hey, I read it here on askhistorians).\n\nThis solved a lot of social and bureaucratic problems. Men couldn't be shirking. It also meant the SSS didn't have to check to see if someone was in vital warwork: they didn't get drafted. Y'know, aircraft designers, farmers, die cutters. They had a real problem with labour shortages on farms when the first waves signed up, and the remainder went away to the city for high-paying defense plant jobs.\n\nNo one was handing out white feathers. People would find out your situation if they didn't know you before judging.\n\nMoral tests were to find people who were moral reprobates like dipsomaniacs and thieves. Those were considered moral problems then. Of course, they were also checking if those claiming to be homosexual were or just trying to dodge.\n\nSources: \n\n*Don't You Know There's a War On?*\n\n*Let the Good Times Roll*\n\n*Virtue Under Fire*" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "fcvywvc" ], "score": [ 10 ], "text": [ "There is quite a lot to unpack here in your question, but I am going to try to unpack it a bit and hopefully provide you an answer to satisfy your curiosity. \n\nFor starters, there really isn't a march of civilization in play, and I'm reading a bit of an underlying assumption that clanship is a more primative form of social organization that is naturally abandoned as a group \"progresses\". This was once commonly believed, but frankly, \"different\" does not mean \"less than\". \n\nClanship in Scotland got a bad rap particularly due to very long-standing bias against the “men of the mountains”—all the way back to the 14th century, so by the time the term *did* arrive, English speakers were already inclined to see clanship in a negative light. This was heightened as well by the retreat of Gaelic, which was once the language of the Scottish Kings, to an area functionally bounded by the Highland Fault. However, clanship fundamentally has the same basis as the sort of Feudalism practiced in the rest of Scotland, with powerful families granted land charters and power to enforce the law within their own demesnes. \n\nThe Scottish crown did not have the ability to enforce its power on the furthest reaches of its Kingdom, indeed owing in part to geography. While it was hardly impossible to cross the Highlands in the medieval period, it was not easy, either, and the Highlands and Islands were far more accessible by sea. In fact, there had once been a seafaring kingdom of the isles under the earldom of Orkney that did govern the area. By the late medieval period, the MacDonalds were on the ascendancy, themselves ultimately descended from a mix of the norse settlers under the earldom and the local Gaelic population.\n\nAlso the MacDonald lords already held considerable land in the Islands, under Aonghas Og, they received further substantial grants of land, including Mull and Tiree, territory held by an elder branch of the same family, the MacDougalls. (If you have seen *Outlaw King*, Aonghas Og is that red-haired guy that hangs around all movie without really being named) By the time of Iain (John), Aonghas Og’s son and heir, the MacDonalds held most of the land in the Highlands and Islands, from Mull to Skye, and stretching inland through Lochaber, Ardnamurchan, and part of Argyll. A substantial holding, and Iain began to call himself *Dominus Insularum*, the Lord of the Isles. In Gaelic, that was *Rì innse gall* or KING of the Islands, an interesting distinction. \n\nWe are into clans here without really acknowledging it, but a minor note of etymology. Clan is from the Gaelic word \"clann\" (surprisingly enough...), which means children. I promise none of this is a pointless side track and it will all come together in the end. Remember that land was held by charter from the King, and this chartered land could be further subdivided (wadsetted or feu lands) by the lord and even further divided by these landholders (in the Gaelic world, these were the fir-tacsa, or taskmen). Holding land in a feudal system is all about maintaining your power, and thus it is important to grant land to close family members and strong allies. So the fir-tacsa (singular: fear-tacsa) were typically cadet members of the lord’s family. In this sort of structure, Gaelic or not, allies also play a major role in maintaining power over land, and thus it is erroneous to believe clans are in fact large families with blood relations. They were formed by a mix of linear descent, marital alliances, and political alliances to mutual benefit. (Thus, for example, the MacMhurichs, the MacBeatha/Beatons and Rhymer families were part of Clan MacDonald.)\n\nNone of this explains why we speak of “clanship” rather than “feudalism” when speaking of the Highlands, but it is necessary to dig into the root of your question, namely what was different and *why it appeared to persist* for a long period after feudal structures collapsed elsewhere. \n\nAmong Gaelic-speaking lords (typically English uses the word chief here for the major land-holding nobility and chieftain for the lesser nobility that reported to a chief), the concept of *dùthchas*is at play. This gets variously translated as birthright, homeland, heritage, etc. We are not getting wildly afield here in terms of ideas, but essentially we are talking about the idea that the land belongs to the chiefly families by hereditary birthright, rather than essentially by feudal land grant from the king. You will still find references to, for instance, the homeland of the MacKays or Campbells. This idea existed, and to an extent persists, even though R.A. Dodgshon, for example, has conducted studies to show that landholdings in the highlands were much less stable over time than the *dùthchas* would imply. \n\nCoupled with the idea of *dùthchas* is the idea that the Chief is at the head of his clan the way a father is head of his family (in traditional lines of thinking). This is where the observation earlier of the meaning of clann comes in—it was seen as a fairly apt analogy. The Chief did provide for his clansmen (and women) through various chiefly functions. One of these was the feast held in honour of a grand occasion, and potentially lasting days. It served to showcase the Chief’s wealth and generosity, as well as munificence to his people. The Chiefs also managed their estates (those original land charter grants as well as any additional holdings they obtained by other means over time) in such a way as to balance requirements from each sublet farm so that rents—in theory—would not ruin any farmer. If you are interested in getting down to the real nuts and bolts of how this would look, check out *From Chiefs to Landlords* by R.A. Dodgshon, particularly Ch. 3.\n\nEdit: I apparently elided a sentence entirely near the beginning." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dlu1vzf" ], "score": [ 36 ], "text": [ "I'm slightly confused by the difference between your first and second question. I think you could make a very strong and very plausible argument that Islam would be an Abrahamic faith on the basis of its tenets regardless of the connection with Abrahams progeny, in the same way that I think you could argue that Mormonism is an \"Abrahamic faith\" even though Joseph Smith, as far as I'm aware, claims no connection to the house of Abraham.\n\nThat the Arabs, at least the Arabs of the Hejaz, were the descendants of Ishmael as far as I'm aware predates the advent of Islam. It's readily accepted as part of the genealogy of Muhammad's tribe Quraysh in the biography of the prophet. It's also mentioned in contemporary non-Islamic sources at the time of the conquests by non-Arabs.\n\nSo the Bishop Sebeos, writing in 660 about a period 30 years earlier writes of Jewish refugees from Edessa that:\n\n\"They set out into the desert and came to Arabia, among the children of Ishmael.\"\n\nAccording to Crone's *Hagarism* (from which I'm quoting) the idea of Arab Ishmaelites is far older than that, appearing 800 years before the Advent of Islam in the Hebrew *Book of Jubilees*:\n\n > A charter for an Arab religion ofAbraham (Jshmaelite and Keturid), including mono- theism, circumcision according to the covenant, and some ethico-legal prescrip- tions, appears in Jubilees\n\nBut here we're venturing very far afield of my area of study indeed." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dfj7au6" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Anglo-Saxon dialects definitely existed, and were likely mutually intelligible. Historians can see variation from one text to another, something that has been used perhaps most extensively with Beowulf. Using the language of Beowulf, a compelling case has been made for a West Saxon origin, based on linguistic aspects of the poem, as well as some place-name evidence. Of course, Beowulf is interesting in and of itself, since the only extant manuscript of it, from the Cotton library, is a transcription from an earlier manuscript, and thus contains errors and changes from whatever archetype was used. Michael Lapidge has done a good job of surveying what we know about these changes in an article I'll cite below.\n\nIt's important to note first off, though, that the study Old English dialects is not a new field, and in fact dates to the late seventeenth and early eighteenth century. Language is an important aspect of national identity, and these early scholars of Old English such as George Hickes created a chronology of \"pure\" Germanic Saxon steadily diverging and being corrupted over time by Briton, Danish, and (outside of our period here) Norman influences. The idea of linguistic complexity was rooted in ideas of classical Latin purity, that the more singular a language was, the better. Of course, historiography has progressed since Hickes, but it's important to recognise that to some degree looking at Old English dialects is still an act of historical construction. Based on things like manuscript glosses and Old English texts, we've constructed an idea of the diversity of language in Anglo-Saxon England, but this is the written word, and may not reflect a potentially greater diversity in spoken English of the time. Nonetheless, these pieces of textual evidence do allow the differentiation of regional dialects. There was clearly a West Saxon dialect, as mentioned with Beowulf, as well as a Mercian, Anglian, Kentish, and Northumbrian. Certainly there were grey areas between the heartlands of these dialects, something that is picked up in documents like Beowulf, which shows aspects of the first four, but most strongly West Saxon and Mercian, hinting at an origin in northern Wessex or southern Mercia. \n\nAs to whether they were mutually intelligible, it's not something that will ever be proven, but is almost certainly the case. Although there are enough differences in the written word to identify one dialect from another, and indeed aspects of several within one text, they are similar enough from one another that Anglo-Saxons could probably communicate with one another regardless of origin.\n\nIt's important to mention too that I'm try to speak roughly in reference to the date you gave: c.700 AD. There is a chronology to Old English dialects, as with any language, and they evolved over time, to say nothing of the impact of Scandinavian languages from the Viking Age onwards. \n\nSome sources/further reading:\n\nMichael Lapidge's 'The Archetype of Beowulf'\n\nGeorge Hickes and the \"Invention\" of the Old English dialects', C.M. Cain, *The Review of English Studies* 11/2010\n\n'Negative Contractions and Old English Dialects', L. van Bergen, *Neuphilologische Mitteilungen* 2008" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c9q6gpc" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "It is a confusing topic, both were pretty much the same event in some respects. I would say the most significant difference was that the Italian Renaissance was more driven by the revival of the pagan aspects of Classical Antiquity. The driving force of this was the Academy of Florence, it's founding father Marsilo Ficino, and in particular its visiting professor (so to speak) George Gemistus Plethon. Plethon's ambition was a Pagan revival which would Christianity, and all other religions into it. Oddly enough one his chief supporters was the Papacy. Rome had the ambition to reabsorb the last remnants of the Byzantine Empire, and above all the Orthodox Church. Plethon, a Greek Nationalist and an opponent of the Orthodox Church was a natural ally. Northern Europe was not much interested in this project. The Nation State was emerging with its own nationalisms, and the new scholarship was drawn into the conflict between the Nation States and the Papacy, otherwise known as The Reformation. The consequence of these long forgotten struggles is that Botticelli earned a good living painting Roman gods and goddesses and Hans Holbein painted Kings. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "eoi8d72" ], "score": [ 224 ], "text": [ "I answered a similar question some time ago [here](_URL_0_) but I’ll repeat it below." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7jeucb/who_got_what_weapons_in_ww2/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c5qk3m8", "c5qk959", "c5qkog7", "c5qkomk", "c5ql0ek", "c5qmb4z", "c5qpoqz", "c5qq1zv", "c5qr6rl", "c5qrrix", "c5qsh6z", "c5qtoqw" ], "score": [ 11, 14, 5, 8, 10, 6, 2, 5, 4, 4, 17, 7 ], "text": [ "During the Soviet-Afghan War (1979-1989), the mujahideen used to attach explosives to camels and then direct them towards Soviet targets. Whenever the camel was close to a desired target (be it a position or a base), they would proceed to use a remote detonator to explode the camel. There are no sources right now that can tell me how effective these attacks actually were, but apparently the US intelligence agencies took this threat so seriously that they gave out warnings to American forces in Afghanistan during the early months of the occupation. The BBC reported in December 12th, 2001 about an incident at Camp Rhino in southern Afghanistan where US marines guarding the camp got themselves quite a camel scare when a \"*big old camel*\" ran into the compound and was fired upon by several startled marines.", "Elephants were the first tanks, but do you know what the first anti-tank missiles were?\n\n[Pigs.](_URL_0_)", "Anyone care to share about old/ancient zoos?", "I'm interested to know why the lion is prominent in British regalia considering we don't have anything more vicious than pissed-off kittens on our fair isles?", "Back when Portugal started sailing around Africa and into India, they brought back diaries with descriptions of the men, fauna and flora they've seen on those foreign countries.\n\n One of these was that of a rhino, which was described as a one-horned armored elephant-like animal. This has lad verious artists, including the German Albrecht Dürer, to depict the rhino as[ literally wearing plate mail armor.](_URL_0_)", "Anyone remember the story of [Wojtek?](_URL_0_) Wojtek was a bear who helped the Polish 22nd Transport Company in WW2", "Related questions: How big were wolves in Europe/Eurasia?\n\nWhat difficulties did large predators represent through various periods of post-Roman civilization and did they create a need for the domestication of hunting or guard dogs?", "Since no one has mentioned it yet, Traveler( Robert E. Lee's horse) is probably the most famous horse of all time(at least in American history). At Washington and Lee college the garage doors ( formerly the stable) of the president's house are always left open for Traveler to come home. Interestingly enough a few miles down the road Jackson's horse, little Sorrel, is stuffed and on display. ", "As for intruiging uses of animals over time I present \n\nProject Pigeon\n\n > The control system involved a lens at the front of the missile projecting an image of the target to a screen inside, while a pigeon trained (by operant conditioning) to recognize the target pecked at it. As long as the pecks remained in the center of the screen, the missile would fly straight, but pecks off-center would cause the screen to tilt, which would then, via a connection to the missile's flight controls, cause the missile to change course.\n_URL_1_\n\nAlso the bat bomb\n > Bat bombs were an experimental World War II weapon developed by the United States. The bomb consisted of a bomb-shaped casing with numerous compartments, each containing a Mexican Free-tailed Bat with a small timed incendiary bomb attached. Dropped from a bomber at dawn, the casings would deploy a parachute in mid-flight and open to release the bats which would then roost in eaves and attics. The incendiaries would start fires in inaccessible places in the largely wood and paper construction of the Japanese cities that were the weapon's intended target.\n_URL_0_\n\n\nThere are numerous other wacky ways humans have decided to use animals as weapons these are but a few I can post more if anyones interested.", "I gotta ask:\n\nWhere does the mythology of dragons start and why? How did they come to be? What was the basis?", "Oh my god, the chance to share one of my favourite animal-related facts EVER. I'm not an expert in this area, but this fact has fascinated me ever since I found out about.\n\nSo when cotton first hit Europe from Central Asia in the late medieval period, they didn't know how to explain it. It's like wool, but what kind of sheep does it come from? They knew it was from a plant, but they couldn't imagine what kind. The earliest written record was in 1350, but they came up with this amazing thing:\n\nThe idea of the [Vegetable Lamb](_URL_1_) was born. The idea was that cotton came from a sheep that was grown from the ground, with a umbilical cord \"stem\" that supported it in the air. The sheep would graze when the wind blew it over enough to reach the grass, and when it ran out of grass, it died, and then people harvested its cotton \"wool\".\n\nSupposedly, Europe didn't find out the truth until roughly *1683*, when German scholar Engelbert Kaempfer decided enough was enough, time to find out the truth. \n\nI feel giddy inside every time I think about this. [My face, every time.](_URL_0_)", "My favorite is certainly [the Beast of the Gévaudan](_URL_1_). \n\nIn the 1760s, there were reports of a [strange beasts](_URL_0_) skulking around south-central France, killing over 100 people and attacking many more over the course of a few years. The beasts were described by eyewitnesses as [wolf-like in appearance](_URL_2_). King Louis XV sent a small army to hunt them down and many subjects, from royal hunters to peasants, volunteered to join. The story became a sensation in the pamphlet press and the popular imagination of French naturalists.\n\nTo this day, we're not quite sure what these beasts might have been. Explanations have ranged from extremely large wolves (though they were reported to hunt alone rather than in packs) to cryptozoologists positing werewolves. I've even heard one person speculate that they might have been hyenas imported from North Africa via Marseilles. " ] }

[]

[ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abul_Abbas", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cher_Ami", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/xkn0h/thursday_focus_the_history_of_music/" ]

[ [], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_pig" ], [], [], [ "http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/02/D%C3%BCrer_rhino_full.png" ], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wojtek_\\(soldier_bear\\)" ], [], [], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_bomb", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pigeon" ], [], [ "http://images.wikia.com/thearchivesofutopia/images/f/f8/Tangled_Pic_Rapunzel.jpg", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetable_Lamb_of_Tartary" ], [ "http://images.wikia.com/villains/images/e/e4/La_b%C3%AAte_du_G%C3%A9vaudan.png", "http://books.google.com/books?id=J3d_z2WFKFYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=monsters+of+the+gevaudan&source=bl&ots=uybAio4In4&sig=lWym3JUricDOcogl-7CpXs9I-J0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rWEkUJS8FaHtygHCxID4Cg&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=monsters%20of%20the%20gevaudan&f=false", "http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/Gevaudanwolf.jpg" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cmlu586" ], "score": [ 4 ], "text": [ "If you're OK with a dense read, John Iliffe's *Africans: The History of a Continent* (2d ed., 2009?) is an interesting overview that extends across the continent in space and time and introduces a lot of concepts that help to define the whole. He's big on thematic subjects, but he does cover a very long stretch of time, and most of the continent." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dirb9ks" ], "score": [ 12 ], "text": [ "It would have been very difficult for Northern civilians to get their hands on tobacco products during the war (in fact the Internal Revenue Act placed a tax on luxury items -- [tobacco](_URL_0_) was included in that). \n\nIf you were a soldier, however, it was pretty easy to procure tobacco. Since most of the war was fought in the South you could easily help yourself to free tobacco at whichever plantation caught your eye and, as Northern and Southern soldiers did feel a certain kinship, there were occasional lulls in the fighting where soldiers would call a short truce to bury their dead and meet up to trade -- these trades included [tobacco](_URL_1_). \n\nAnd finally, America is an expansive country and obviously, surveillance was not nearly at the level it is today, so some entrepreneurial people would smuggle tobacco into the north, as detailed [here](_URL_2_) (this requires a JSTOR subscription).\n\nSo yeah, it was tricky, even if you were a soldier, but people were still able to get tobacco, it just required a bit more ingenuity and money than it did before or after the war." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.nps.gov/resources/story.htm%3Fid%3D251", "https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/07/breaks-in-the-action/?_r=0", "http://www.jstor.org.gate.lib.buffalo.edu/stable/1895751?Search=yes&resultItemClick=true&searchText=tobacco&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3Ffilter%3Diid%253A10.2307%252Fi305543%26amp%3BQuery%3Dtobacco&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "chgf80a", "chgnbx2", "clpz387" ], "score": [ 36, 11, 2 ], "text": [ "So Gary Allen has a really complete time line of the history of 911 in the USA. _URL_0_ here. I would recommend reading that. It's complete with correct resources and self sourced history. \n\nEdit: his article answers your questions as well! ", "Historians mark the beginning of the American EMS system with the publication of *Accidental Death and Disability: The Neglected Disease of Modern Society* (National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, 1966), generally referred to as \"The White Paper\". This paper concerned itself with \"preventable\" deaths, or deaths that had not to do with something like disease, but car accidents, work place accidents, essentially, deaths caused from human fault. The paper argued that many of these deaths were caused due to the time it took for patients to receive care (laying the foundation for pre-hospital care). \n\nThe idea of prehospital care and transport was not altogether new. In 1797, Dominique-Jean Larrey used a system of special carriages to transport soldiers away from battle fields. Bellevue Hospital, the first hospital in the United Sates, used horse drawn carriages as well as early as 1869. To give you an idea what these look like, [Here](_URL_0_) is a picture of the horse drawn carriages used by Grady Hospital in Atlanta in 1896. However, it is important to realize hospitals during this time were very different than the modern day hospital. Hospitals would consist of large wards, and was really considered a place where people (the poor in particular) went to die. Funeral Homes often were the means of transport to the hospital well into the 20th century. Patients would actually ride in the back of the hearse. \n\nAfter the release of the white paper, the National Highway Traffic Saftey Administrator (subset of the Department of Transportation) released its first curriculum for the training of Emergency Medical Technicians. When it became clear that space was needed to preform CPR, bandage wounds, carry patients on stretchers, the modern Ambulances soon followed. This took time to implement though, and use of funeral homes for transportation continued into the 70s in some places (particularly rural areas). \n\nThe second thing to realize is EMS has largely been influenced by US military interventions. The military originally showed the importance of pre hospital care for trauma, particularly in stabilizing patients prior to transport in a helicopter. The Vietnam war gave the data needed to prove this, and so great strides in treating trauma were made (in fact, recently, Iraq and Afganistan wars have dramatically changed trauma treatment as well, but that goes beyond the scope of this subreddit)\n\nDuring the 70s, the Emergency Medical Services Act of 1973 dramatically improved development of regional EMS services, and the National Registry of Emergency Medical Technicians (the national board which certifies people to this day) was formed in 1970 to standardize practices. Much of the funding was lost however, after Health Care became managed by Block Grants under Reagan, a system which did not favor EMS funding. The ideas and practices of what EMS needed to accomplish, and what qualified as proper care began to evolve in the 90s, and by that point EMS was an integrated member of the emergency response trifecta (Police, Fire, EMS). \n\nA highly recommend you peruse _URL_1_, which has lots of excellent information on the people behind getting EMS started in the united states. For more information on modern day EMS, please visit us in /r/EMS. \n\nSource: Advance EMT: A Clinical Reasoning Approach, Melissa Alexander and Richard Belle\n", "In 1968, a solution was agreed upon. AT & T chose to implement the concept, but with its unique emergency number, 9-1-1, which was brief, easy to remember, dialed easily, and worked well with the phone systems in place at the time. _URL_0_" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.911dispatch.com/911/history/" ], [ "http://em.pgpic.com/images/vm/Grady%20Hospital%20Horsedrawn1888.jpg", "emsmuseum.org" ], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9-1-1" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cxssb6l" ], "score": [ 4 ], "text": [ "The tests definitely did kill animals who were inadvertently nearby, but I don't think we have good documentation on how many. There are anecdotal accounts of people coming across rabbits at the Trinity site and lots of work was done to study the effects of nuclear testing on the creatures and ecosystem at the Pacific Proving Grounds. The Bravo test alone [deposited enough radiation in the water to be measured in radioactive fish for hundreds of miles around the test site](_URL_1_). \n\nThe tests also deliberately killed many animals for the purposes of the testing — pigs, mice, etc. — to see the effects on creatures. Pigs, for example, have skin that is similar to human skin in many ways, and so were used for burn tests. [This chart](_URL_0_) I stumbled across recently gives you a sense of scale for these kinds of testing endeavors — they may have been using conventional high explosives or other means for doing this, though. But that particular chart used 614 \"large\" animals, including burros, dogs, and steer, and 1,483 \"small\" animals, to get the data." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://twitter.com/wellerstein/status/658309338742829056", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Bravo#/media/File:Castle_Bravo_fish_contamination_map.png" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dbq9l1h", "dbqiron", "dbqixa5", "dbqrhfo" ], "score": [ 4, 3, 3, 3 ], "text": [ "How ancient would you like the game to represent? Rome II: Total War has a fairly realistic look at logistics and armies of the time period, and an interesting look at some of the (very high level) politics. Shogun II: Total War as well for the samurai-era in Japan. \n\nHave you considered board games as a complement to the video games, or is it directly about video game concepts?", "I had a teacher in Middle School that actually did in-class simulations dealing with the ancient Near East and also Rome. His name was Brad Hulman, and I know his simulation was published. I'll try to find it.\n\nHere it is: \n_URL_1_\n\nAnd my favorite simulation:_URL_0_\n\nI'll never forget doing these in class. I used to spend my gym period every day strategizing and planning what to do next in the simulation. Empires was amazing.", "Ancient world history is super broad. If you mean Antiquity your best bet is the Rome: Total War games and perhaps EU:Rome. \n\nIf you mean up to early middle ages I can suggest games like Crusader Kings 2.\n\nI don't know much about anywhere other than the ancient Mediterranean world, but it is heavily under used field imo. Good luck with that", "In addition to the Total War series that others have mentioned, have you had a look at any of the old school city builders like [Caesar III](_URL_1_), [Zeus+Poseidon](_URL_2_), [Pharoah+Cleopatra](_URL_0_)?\n\nThere is a combat element to some of the missions but they're way more focused on trade and city development." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://www.interact-simulations.com/c/product.web?nocache@13+s@aSosq6kZqQf6k+record@TF34287+Title@EMPIRES+ISBN@9781573363754", "http://www.interact-simulations.com/c/product.web?nocache@1+s@aSosq6kZqQf6k+record@TF42261+Title@ANCIENT%20HISTORY%20ACTIVATORS+ISBN@9781560043706" ], [], [ "https://www.gog.com/game/pharaoh_cleopatra", "https://www.gog.com/game/caesar_3", "https://www.gog.com/game/zeus_poseidon" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c8jjqik", "c8jk9zw", "c8jkzfo" ], "score": [ 3, 3, 11 ], "text": [ "Byzantine art drew off of many classical elements (logically, for it was a former part of Rome itself) and featured all of the regular religious subject matter. It was mostly just building upon the pre-existing trends of Roman art you mention; it was definitely a pioneer of many things, but again, Roman art was its mother. \n\nIt was, in fact, considered unrealistic at a certain point, which led to its decline and the cusp of the Renaissance, so don't believe it was considered \"real\" by all.\nAnother thing to consider is that for the popular medium of mosaic, it was indeed made with realism in mind, and uses certain techniques to make it that way, but was perhaps less flexible than traditional canvas and paper (of which Byzantine art may look generally more \"real\" on). \nPerhaps, though, you assume too strongly that people took this art style as realistic, when indeed it was deliberately stylized in certain areas. People of the time period saw religion as a super natural experience, and wanted the art to reflect that, causing some deliberate incongruence of reality with godlike qualities. It brought new conventions that tied in with religious beliefs at the time; certain unrealistic or stylized parts of it were useful in communicating certain ideas to the viewer: for instance, more important figures would have feet that were larger and on top of less important figures in the composition. Fully golden backgrounds signified the celestial and royal. There's more examples I could use but I'd prefer to have brevity.\n \n\nYou mention Hellenistic art; Byzantine art need not worry about Hellenistic conventions, because the two periods were very, very far off from each other, by 1000+ years. I'm not sure if you meant to imply that Hellenistic period in particular or are being more broad, though.\n\nSource: took AP Art History last year; I'm rusty, so please take this answer with a grain of salt. I'm by no means an expert and for all I know i'm way off.\n", "Early christians wanted to avoid similarities with pagan representation and also had a worry of falling in into iconography, that the Bible condemned, but some saw importance in a educational function: art made easier to make people remember religious passages. \n\nPope Gregory I followed this opinion, but then the scene portrayed nedded to be the simplest possible and all unnecessary things were removed. Like in [this mosaic](_URL_0_) in Ravena, you can see they knew how to make draperies and human figures but made it deliberately simple.\n\nLater the Oriental Orthodox churches avoided the question of iconography by only allowing traditional styles. An \"[Icon](_URL_1_)\" couldn't be just any painting but follow strict models. You can notice they knew how to do drapperies and how use shadows in the face and hands so.\n\nSource: History of Art classes, Gombrich's *The Story of Art* - chapter 6", "I think that an important distinction to be made here is the difference between \"realistic\" and \"naturalistic\". While naturalistic art refers to works that convincingly portray things the way they appear in real life, realistic art portrays things the way they *are*, including symbolic and spiritual elements as well as visual similarities. In the case of the Byzantines, I think they would not necessarily consider their art naturalistic, because it does show stylization, but they would consider it realistic. Byzantine art tends to represent things accurately not based on the way they look, but also by showing their spiritual nature. Since most Byzantine art was religious in subject matter, it would not have been considered realistic if it showed religious figures as they would have appeared in real life. These religious works would only be considered realistic if they showed symbolic spiritual elements such as a gold background that represented a sort of heavenly setting or elongated weightless bodies that signified the holy nature of the individuals. \n\nAs for the change from the Hellenistic aesthetic to the Byzantine style, there were several hundred years separating these two styles with a natural progression in art that occurred between them. The late Roman style and early Christian style come between the Hellenistic period and the Byzantine period, which show a slow change in style, rather than an abrupt shift. Was there a particular work of Byzantine art that you had in mind?" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ajSs1Z4jq60/S62Tg8szwZI/AAAAAAAAANE/cJGq5hl1pPs/s1600/IMG_0438.JPG", "http://www.nga.gov/image/a0000a/a0000a06.jpg" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e8h1cdf" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "I'm not sure about the situation in Georgia, but my guess is that Georgia's absence could have something to do with the limbo Georgia was in during this period. The trustees of the colony had more or less given up and signed over control to the Crown in 1752, yet Georgia did not officially become a royal colony until 1755. \n\nThe original woodcut was created by Benjamin Franklin to garner support for the Albany Plan of Union in 1754. As Virginia began a conflict with the French over control of the Ohio Valley, the British wanted the American colonies to meet in order to discuss a plan for effectively countering French advancements in North America. This stems from the fact that the colonies were severely divided over land claims and as hostilities increased, few colonies were willing to come to the aid of Virginia.\n\nAt the Albany Congress, the representatives (representatives came from Connecticut, Rhode Island, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Pennsylvania, although other colonies like Virginia were represented via proxy) settled on the Albany Plan of Union. Among other things, this plan called for a grand council, with 2-7 delegates from each colony, which would have legislative powers and control Indian affairs (a very important point, as Indian policy varied dramatically between the colonies). \n\nFranklin's woodcut was appealing to the colonial legislatures to approve the Albany Plan in order to defeat the French in the coming war and facilitate Indian alliances (especially the Covenant Chain with the Six Nations of the Iroquois). However, the plan was not approved in any of the colonies, and was rejected by British imperial officials. The plan, which is largely credited to Franklin, served as a rough basis for the formation of the Articles of Confederation government created during the American Revolution. \n\nSource: Timothy J. Shannon, *The Albany Congress of 1754: Indians and Colonists at the Crossroads of Empire* (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2000)." ] }

[]

[ "http://www.usflag.org/gadsden.html" ]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "crzfd5z" ], "score": [ 7 ], "text": [ " > And on a slightly different but related note, do we know how the Roman practice of giving their legions cognomen as well as numbers started? (Legio II Augusta, Legio VI Ferrate, etc.) From the timeline and from common sense I assume it only began once units acquired a more permanent nature in the first century BC\n\nJust as a note, in point of fact the legions didn't really become permanent until after Actium, when Augustus standardized the number of legions and placed then for the first time in permanent posts. The abolition of the property qualification allowed armies to serve for more than a single campaigning season, but since magisterial terms were limited to a year and a magistrate holding imperium had to lay it down (which meant disbanding his troops, among other things) before rejoining the ranks of the senate, in point of fact armies still only lasted a year. Sulla's law allowing propraetors and proconsuls provincial commands (usually for five years) allowed armies to stay in thr field for much longer periods of time, since every promagisterial governor could rely on being given an army. But at the end of the term, when the governor had to lay down his imperium, troops were expected to be disbanded again--we encounter things like Pompey's refusal to disband his troops, or Caesar's troops who fought throughout thr civil wars illegally, but these are notable exceptions to the rule and are very much illegal. It's not until Augustus that legions are not tied to the inpweium of their commander--because of the emperor's ability to command *imperium maius* those legions can be stationed and maintained for decades at a time. Likewise, it's probably not until Augustus that legions begin being given permanent titles--after all, prior to this it wouldn't have made much sense, given that a legion would only hold its title for a short time before being disbanded, and any new legion raised with the same number was a different legion entirely. There are a few exceptions to that, such as Caesar's Tenth Legion (although I somewhat doubt that their title was made official until much later), but generally it stands\n\nUnfortunately I don't think I can really help with your actual question, although we do have knowledge of contingents being named. You've mentioned things like the Immortals (they're not actually called that in Persian though), but of course we know that Alexander had named contingents of a kind, in the form of formations like the silver shields. The are, though, as you have said, somewhat special outfits, however, and that's not really what you're asking about. Battalions of the Phalanx were considered separate formations as well, and were, unlike many of his contingents (like the Thessalians, or most of his light troops), were not ethnically unique, but I'm not sure whether they had individual names--I doubt it, I've only ever seen them referred to by their commanders' names " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d925oph" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Your question is very broad, maybe try to mention some people you wish to know about to get responses since there are plenty of ways and circumstances women gainer power. The only only one you name is Cleopatra but you do not seem to wish any further info on her rule." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "chue6ij" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "[This thread should probably answer most of your questions](_URL_0_)" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1iztzd/how_accurately_do_movies_such_as_master_and/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dajq249" ], "score": [ 4 ], "text": [ "David Glantz's Stalingrad trilogy is about the most well-researched and comprehensive tome I've seen on the subject." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ehvjy8q", "ehvuu5t", "ehvz2z2" ], "score": [ 17, 7, 9 ], "text": [ "Well, interestingly, many people associate the advent of firearms in Japan with the Meiji Restoration in the 1860s and modernization to European standards because that has this really stark contrast in the popular imagination of feudal samurai, these guys wielding katanas and wearing the fierce looking [men-yoroi](_URL_1_), leading the Japanese equivalent of the charge of the light bridge against lines of imperial soldiers wielding rifled firearms and wearing european style uniforms, but it's not when guns first appeared or had widespread use in Japan. Firearms emerged in a big way at the end of the Sengoku era, starting in the mid 1500s and exploding in use, particularly under Oda Nobunaga who famously *loved* guns. It only (sort of) fell out of use in the Edo era under the Tokugawas, although guns were still manufactured in Japan, because it was just an exceptionally peaceful era, what conflict happened was small scale and local. The gun resurged as part of the modernization of Japan under the Meiji Restoration's military reforms and modernization which gave us those really stark contrasts many assume were the first times guns were used in Japan.\n\nThere is a whole class of firearms called Tanegashima, the matchlock harquebuses the Japanese developed from Portuguese and (later) Dutch imports. Their name indicates their origin: Tanegashima is one of the only islands the Japanese allowed foreign trade to enter, it was specifically reserved for Portuguese traders (it's similar to how the Japanese called much of western science \"Rangaku\" (蘭学) - Dutch studies - because it came through the Dutch port in Dejima). If you google image search Tanegashima, you'll alternately get images of beautifully crafted matchlocks, and also just maps and photos of the island.\n\nThe Japanese adopted the firearm toward the end of the Sengoku in the middle of the 16th century. For those unfamiliar, the Sengoku was a period of incredible, endless warfare in Japan starting from the 15th century after the power of the Shogunate was broken in the Onin war, and only ending when a new Shogunate formed under Tokugawa Ieyasu whose military supremacy was unchallengeable. The country fractured into smaller feudal states and their clients in almost endless war with each other over two centuries. It was in this period that most depictions of the itinerant samurai warrior emerge, as previously most samurai were aristocratic and tightly tied to a lord/daimyo and his land, but in this period many peasants became de facto samurai, because that's just kind of how war works (those same warriors at the end of the Sengoku would evolve into the bureaucrats, poets, and artists of the peaceful Edo period as the Bakufu).\n\nThe most famous example of this fluidity is actually the final reunification of Japan under the Shogunate, which happened basically in stages over 3 families: Oda Nobunaga, who did much of the foundational work for reunification, Toyotomi Hideyoshi, who by hook and crook came into control of the Oda clan after Nobunaga's assassination, and finally Tokugawa Ieyasu, who kind of picked up the pieces after Hideyoshi failed to cement his dynasty. Nobunaga and Ieyasu were the scions of powerful clans, but Hideyoshi was a peasant - his biography doesn't even give him a surname before he just started receiving/taking them as part of distinguishing himself as a competent soldier, negotiator, and general under Nobunaga.\n\nOda Nobunaga was a big fan of tanegashima and used them extensively in his reunification. Much of his armies were peasants/conscripts (ashigaru), as one might guess from Hideyoshi's humble background and rise to prominence, and many were armed with tanegashima, in contrast to the professional/aristocratic samurai. By the time Hideyoshi invaded Korea in the 1580s/90s using the armies he and Nobunaga had built, it had tens of thousands of arquebusiers in a force of 160,000, an exceptional growth in use when the first arquebus to arrive in Japan was only 50 years earlier in 1543. Guns continued to be manufactured in Japan in the Edo period even though the country was closed to foreign trade, they were just pitifully outdated by the 19th century. While the gun fell out of favor in such a peaceful era, in contrast, the bow developed a ceremonial purpose by becoming integrated as a meditative practice in Zen buddhism via Kyudou ( 弓道 ) - the way/path/dao of the bow. So under the bakufu/Shogunate's government, the bow found a place of cultural relevance even in a time of peace, but the tanegashima never quite found a niche in the cultural museum after its time of high prominence at the end of the Sengoku.\n\nNoel Perrin wrote an interesting book on this, [Giving up the Gun: Japan's Reversion to the Sword](_URL_0_), which, while it has problems, includes a lot of information. Other sources:\n\n[Tanegashima: the arrival of Europe in Japan](_URL_2_), some of my old textbooks whose names I can't remember.\n\nEDIT: as /u/ParallelPain pointed out, I misquoted the number of arquebusiers sent to Korea. It was a significant portion but the total force was 160,000.", "u/Khenghis_Ghan has already given a lot of background about the widespread adoption of firearms (the matchlock arquebus/musket) in Japan, so I won't repeat any of that.\n\nJapan did have earlier exposure to gun (Chinese guns), but made little use of them. The introduction of the Portuguese-style arquebus, usually dated 1543, resulted in the widespread use of guns (see Brown (1948) for an overview of pre-1543 guns in Japan). The Battle of Nagashino (1575) is often described as the first major battle where guns were decisive; approximately 10% of Oda Nobunaga's force (the winners) were equipped with arquebuses. So, we have about 30 years from the introduction of this type of gun to it playing a key role on the battlefield. Not counting pre-1543 guns, this is a rapid process. The speed at which these guns spread and were used in increasing numbers on the battlefield resulted from a combination of factors:\n\n1. The Portuguese-style arquebus was a mature and effective design.\n\n2. Japanese metallurgy and metal-working was sufficiently advanced so that such guns could be made quickly and cheaply, and of good quality.\n\n3. It was a period of very active warfare in Japan, with regional warlords contending for greater power, or attempting to survive in the face of neighbours with growing power. Warfare was characterised by increasing size of armies, and greater dependence on infantry. A weapon which (a) offered much better armour penetration than the bow, and (b) required less training for effective use than the bow (not needing the physical development required by high draw weight war bows), and could be obtained in large numbers sufficiently cheaply was attractive.\n\nBy the time of Hideyoshi's invasion of Korea in 1592, the gun was not only important on the battlefield, but also dominant. However, the bow didn't disappear from the battlefield; in at least some of the regional contingents that went to Korea, the number of archers was about the same as the number of gunners. Experience in Korea led to an even bigger emphasis on guns, with requests from the Japanese forces from Korea like:\n\n > Prepare guns and ammunition. We have absolutely no use for spears. It is vital that you arrange somehow to obtain a number of guns. You should see to it that those persons being deployed [to Korea] understand this situation. The arrangements for guns should receive your closest attention.\n\n(quoted in Stavros (2013)). Even after the ascendance of the Tokugawa shogunate at the Battle of Sekigahara (1600) and their crushing of their major remaining opponents at the Siege of Osaka (1614 and 1615), writers such as Miyamoto Musashi consider the bow to still be usable on the battlefield In his *Book of Five Rings*, he compared the bow and the gun:\n\n > The bow is tactically strong at the commencement of battle, especially battles on a moor, as it is possible to shoot quickly from among the spearmen. However, it is unsatisfactory in sieges, or when the enemy is more than forty yards away. For this reason there are nowadays few traditional schools of archery. There is little use nowadays for this kind of skill. \n\n > From inside fortifications, the gun has no equal among weapons. It is the supreme weapon on the field before the ranks clash, but once swords are crossed the gun becomes useless. \n\n > One of the virtues of the bow is that you can see the arrows in flight and correct your aim accordingly, whereas gunshot cannot be seen. You must appreciate the importance of this.\n\nIf major warfare between powerful warlords had continued, it's likely that the bow would have completely disappeared from the battlefield. However, with unification of Japan, and the stable Tokugawa government maintaining peace, further military development largely stopped, and the bow was still present in small numbers (the gun - the matchlock arquebus - was still the dominant battlefield weapon) in the mid-19th century when encounters with the West (Perry's fleet, and all that) convinced that Japanese that modernisation of their armed forces was necessary.\n\nReferences:\n\nBrown, Delmer M. “The Impact of Firearms on Japanese Warfare, 1543-98.” *The Far Eastern Quarterly*, vol. 7, no. 3, 1948, pp. 236–253. JSTOR, _URL_0_ doi:10.2307/2048846\n\nMiyamoto Musashi (c. 1645), *Go Rin No Sho* (*Book Of Five Rings*). The quote is from the Victor Harris translation.\n\nMatthew Stavros (2013) Military Revolution in Early Modern Japan, *Japanese Studies*, 33:3, 243-261, DOI: \n10.1080/10371397.2013.831733", "A few other members have done a fantastic job answering the question so far, but as I was well into typing my response to the OPs question, I will post regardless to provide some additional context. Apologies for any overlap. \n\nTo start, I will lay out an overview to go over the general overviews of the topic, before diving in more deeply. Firearms replaced bows in Japan during the mid 1500s to 1600, when at this point it was evident that the former had supplanted the latter. In 1543, Japan was introduced to western style firearms. Throughout the preceding decades (leading up to 1600) adoption and implementation of firearms was gradual and inconsistent. Many different factors (such as location, relationship to bakufu or Portuguese, etc) means that certain areas of the country had more availability and understanding of the weapon. Coupled with this, if we consider the temperment of the daimyō of a domain regarding the implementation of firearms, it was not a meteoric revolution that immediately changed the whole face of battlefields in Japan. Firearms did surpass bows in use, but it was a gradual and inconsistent process.\\[2\\] Now to dive a bit deeper let's look at a short narrative of events surrounding firearms in Japan leading up to 1600.\n\n# History of Firearms in Japan\n\nAs I stated earlier, European firearms were introduced to Japan by the Portuguese in 1543, but this was not the first time Japan had seen (or used) firearms as a whole. The Chinese for some time had their own version of firearms. These were brought to Japan through the Kyūkyū Kingdom (modern day Okinawa) about 80 years before the Portuguese introduced western firearms. A version of these primitive firearms which were introduced via Ryūkyū were are three metal tubed weapon which was called *hiya*, fire arrows. Archeological records, dairies, and military account all indicate that hiyas were brought, and used throughout the different regions of Japan. While they were there, they did not see widespread use in the slightest. (\\[3\\] pg. 146) In 1543, 3 Portuguese merchants happened to land in Japan when the Chinese ship they were on was blown off course due to a storm. (\\[1\\] pg. 203) They landed on a small island 44 miles to the southeast of Kyūshū, called Tanegashima. The firearms (teppōs) were demonstrated to the residents of Tanegashima, and the Portuguese eventually gave 3 of their guns away. 2 of the firearms were given to Tanegashima Tokitada, who was the local lord, and a third was bought by a monk of the Negoro-ji temple. From this event, teppōs would spread throughout Japan. (\\[4\\]pg. 143-144)\n\nThe monk returned to the firearms back to Negoro-ji temple in central Japan. Their the monks used the metal forgery they had ties with to start producing teppōs. The gunsmiths created enough firearms to arm a unit of 300 teppō shū (firearm wielding marksmen) in 1570. (\\[3\\]pg. 124). In Tanegashima, Portuguese merchant ships arrived two years after the initial contact in 1543, and a trade relationship was established. (\\[1\\] pg. 264) Tanegashima brought teppōs to the Ashikaga shoguns, along with recipes for gunpowder. The Ashikaga shoguns would proceed to give out teppōs and the gunpowder recipes to lords who would support them. Japanese gunsmiths did not take long to become proficient in the production of teppōs. Along with the aforementioned forges in Tanegashima and Negoro-ji, forgres producing firearms popped up throughout Japan, such as in Sakai. (\\[4\\]pg. 156) \nNow moving forward onto the adoption and implementation of firearms on Japanese battlefields. Much has been made as to the now semi-mythical relationship between Oda Nobunaga and firearms (which has been challenged to a degree, such as with the reconstruction and push against more traditional understandings of the Battle of Nagashino in 1575), but some of the earliest successful use of firearms were by the previously mentioned force of 300 teppō armed monks of Negoro-ji. Thomas Conlan discusses in *Instruments of Change* when he states:\n\n > *“In spite of Negoroji’s proficiency in using and producing these weapons (firearms), their role in disseminating firearms has been ignored. Standard narratives of Japan’s sixteenth-century history portray regional “lords” or daimyō as being the most cognizant of the power of these new weapons and most able to use them effectively. Oda Nobunaga, the first of the “three unifiers” of Japan, has been characterized as a military genius whose concentrated use of firepower allowed him to “revolutionize” warfare, crush his most potent rival, the Takeda of Kai province, and consolidate power from 1570 until his assassination in 1583. The priests of Negoroji realized the importance of these new weapons earlier than any daimyō. In contrast to Nobunaga, who hastily assembled a squad of gunners for the battle of Nagashino, they fielded a formidable squad of gunners through mastery of production and training. And when Nobunaga dispatched his brother to attack Negoroji, his army suffered a convincing defeat. Unlike the “epochal” encounter at Nagashino, this battle has been consigned to oblivion, largely because Nobunaga’s successor, Toyotomi Hideyoshi, incinerated most of the temple complex in 1585.” (\\[3\\]pg. 124)* \n\nThis is an important passage to highlight for several reasons. One it highlights the flaws in the more popular narrative surrounding the adoption of firearms in Japan. This usually is something along the lines of ‘guns were brought to Japan in 1540s, were not widely used until Nobunaga came along, and he saw the advantage in firearms and was able to seize control of Japan because of it, and as a result other warlords saw the advantage of firearms’. In actuality, the spread of firearms was very inconsistent, from both a time and location perspective. Warriors of Kyūshū and western Japan saw a larger influx of firearms early on as opposed to the warriors of eastern Japan. (\\[4\\] pg. 179) Even within regions, to which degree and how quickly proper firearm usage was implemented varies between Japan. If we look at three major samurai houses of the east, the Uesugi, Takeda of Kai, and Hōjō, this condition is apparent. The Uesugi leveraged their close relation with the Muromachi bakufu to acquire teppōs and gunpowder recipes. The Uesugi worked on methods of organizing gunners to fire in groups, which provided them an advantage earlier than their counterparts. Mobilization reports indicate that the Hōjō were slow in figuring out how to properly implement firearms in their military structure, and that it was not until around 1587 that they were able to reach a 1:1 ratio between bows and firearms. The Uesugi were much faster in this regard, and as Conlan notes in *Weapons and Fighting Techniques of the Samurai* that Uesugi Kenshin was able to have significant success vs the Hōjō in a campaign in 1560-61. Prior to this campaign in 1559 he had received a recipe for gunpowder from Kyōtō. To what extent this affected the campaign could be debated, but it is worth considering. The Takeda of Kai were relatively slow in implementing firearms as well. Documents from 1562 indicate that the Takeda planned organize their troops in units of 45 soldiers, with only 1 of them being a gunner (comparatively, there would be 5 archers). (\\[4\\]pg.165) These three warrior houses give a good example on how varied the implementation and use of firearms were even within a given region. Different groups took varying amount of time to properly implement firearms. Eventually daimyō were able to integrate teppō gunners into their military structure to a degree that in 1600, for the most part, firearms had surpassed bows in usage in Japan. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://books.google.com/books?id=4Ete0zPAnjwC&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=true", "https://www.google.com/search?q=men-yoroi&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS786US786&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiklOz-jOzgAhWSnp4KHT3dDGkQ_AUIDigB&biw=1517&bih=730", "https://books.google.com/books?id=6WQnNqhDNhAC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=true" ], [ "www.jstor.org/stable/2048846" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "duyd0nb" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "This topic has been covered a number of times in the past. The short answer is that a large proportion of the senior Saxon nobility, including two of Harold's brothers, was killed at Hastings; a significant number of others fled (including Harold's sons, to Ireland; at least a few went to Byzantium and entered imperial service there); the Normans removed a large number of the remaining Saxon landowners where it seemed safe to do so (meaning predominantly in the south), such that Domesday Book (1086) shows that there were only two remaining large landholders with Saxon names; but that the difficulties of consolidating Norman rule, in what was rather a large kingdom, were great enough for William to leave the northern lords, Edwin of Mercia and Morcar of Northumbria, in place in the immediate post-conquest period even though they had clearly backed Harold in 1066. \n\nWhen Edwin and Morcar subsequently rebelled in 1068 they were pardoned, but when they did so again in 1069, Edwin's earldom was abolished and the land distributed among several Norman nobles. Morcar, on the other hand, was ultimately replaced by another Northumbrian, Waltheof. Waltheof had spent some time at William's court and would have been well known to the new king, but this decision likely indicates that William still had little confidence in his ability to hold the far north without either Saxon help, or by seriously weakening the forces available to him in the south. \n\nIt was only after Waltheof in turn rebelled in 1075 that William installed a Norman Earl of Northumbria, and then only after his infamous Harrying of the North had substantially disrupted and depopulated large swathes of the whole region. His reasons for leaving the large Northumbrian earldom intact, when he had dismembered Mercia, likely had to do with Northumbria's important role as a first line of defence against Scottish incursion, especially in a period where the Scots had the potential to seriously disrupt Norman rule by backing Saxon pretenders.\n\nFor a more detailed discussion see\n\n[What happened to Anglo-Saxon huscarls, land-owners and mercenaries after the Norman conquest?](_URL_3_)\n\nand\n\n[How devastating really was William the Conqueror's Harrying of the North in 1069-70? I've heard it described as anywhere from a wholesale genocide and slaughter to something more mild. What are the sources and evidence?](_URL_1_), both with u/Steelcan909\n\n[Was there an organized exodus of Anglo-Saxons after the Norman Invasion?](_URL_0_) with u/AlanWithTea\n\n[How did a tiny, brand-new nobility manage to subjugate [England] in the first place?](_URL_2_) with u/Viae" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2ojvzl/was_there_an_organized_exodus_of_anglosaxons/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/74atdd/how_devastating_really_was_william_the_conquerors/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1gknjw/norman_england_after_william_the_conqueror_how/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7s1ld8/what_happened_to_anglosaxon_huscarls_landowners/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cfb0f8p", "cfb6o0b" ], "score": [ 2, 2 ], "text": [ "The primary reason was that Zheng He's expeditions basically bankrupted the Ming Court.\n\nEntire forests in Southern China (and part of Vietnam) were leveled to resource the timber needed for the massive ships of Zheng He's fleet. Ship building and maintenance proved to be very costly for China.\n\nOn top of it, Manchurian and Mongol Tribes renewed their raids into Northern China, and the Ming Court struggled to fund their army to repel the invaders.\n", "hi! FYI, there have been a few related posts; check these out for previous responses:\n\n[What were some reasons that China turned inwards and neglected maritime exploration after Admiral Zheng He and his missions.](_URL_0_)\n\n[Why were Zheng He's voyages considered wasteful?](_URL_1_)" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1a2irc/what_were_some_reasons_that_china_turned_inwards/", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ibdhy/why_were_zheng_hes_voyages_considered_wasteful/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dn29f3c", "dn5ku57" ], "score": [ 4, 3 ], "text": [ "Hi, there's lots of room for more answers, but fyi, you can get started here\n\n* [How did classical composers/pianists make money?](_URL_0_) featuring /u/caffarelli among others ", "In the case of, say, singers in the Eighteenth Century, you might have a steady job singing in a church choir. This would give you lodging and food, and possibly (in the best of circumstances) a small stipend.\n\nThe real money was on the operatic circuit. But it was also very high risk: you generally only had contracts for a period of several months, and you never knew where your next paycheck was coming from. Again, contracts provided for food and lodging, and there would be some sort of monetary gain either in the form of an actual stipend or in the form of one-time gifts of some sort of monetary value. And because you were usually entering into the temporary service of a monarch or other noble patron, you also gained a degree of favor that you could use to make requests that way too. In lieu of salaries, some opera companies let the singer host a \"benefit concert,\" the proceeds from which they could keep for themselves (this was an especially popular option in England). \n\nIf you were good/lucky, you'd also have a patron or group of patrons who supported you more long-term. Perhaps they provided you lodging and food on the off-season. In fact, they may have been involved with your musical education from the get-go. Often good students are \"sponsored\" through their education by a noble patron. \n\nOnly the best of the best would be able to pull off a synthesis of both worlds: they could hold permanent positions at some pristigious music-making institution, but would be on leave pretty much the entire time in foreign courts performing there. You would essentially function as a symbol of your home courts wealth and power, who \"loaned you out\" to perform at other places.\n\nWhen you tired of singing, you could possibly transition into an administrative role, becoming an \"impresario\" who hired the singers and the personnel for an operatic season. This is what Farinelli, the greatest operatic star of the eighteenth century did, he retired from the stage to direct music for the Spanish court, singing privately for the king and handling the court opera. And for that service, he effectively was made into nobility. \n\nHopefully in the coming days I can come back with some more specific examples if you require! But for now, here are some sources for what I was saying above:\n\n* Durante, Sergio. 1998. \"The Opera Singer.\" In *Opera Production and its Resources.* Edited by Lorenzo Bianconi and Giorgio Pestelli, 347-417. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.\n\n* Heartz, Daniel. 2003. *Music in European Capitals: The Galant Style 1720-1780.* New York: Norton.\n\n* Holmes, William C. 1993. *Opera Observed: Views of a Florentine Impresario in the Early Eighteenth-Century.* Chicago: University of Chicago Press.\n\n* Rosselli, John. 1988. “The Castrati as a Professional Group and a Social Phenomenon, 1550-1850.” *Acta Musicologica* 60: 143-79. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1h8plc/how_did_classical_composerspianists_make_money" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cpsk29e", "cpskb2j", "cpskzq3", "cpso08r", "cpsp7kb", "cpss82c", "cpss8zd", "cptbspd", "cptbw3p" ], "score": [ 212, 21, 1272, 6, 27, 5, 13, 3, 2 ], "text": [ "Listen up everyone. We've already have 8 comments which had been deleted for breaking our rules. Unless you can answer this question in-depth and be prepared to answer follow-up questions (and source requests), please **refrain** from writing. We're not interested in your personal opinion or personal anecdotes. For more information, [please read our rules](_URL_1_) or [get in touch with us directly through mod-mail.](_URL_0_)", "I'd also like to know why they turned out so different, what'd we do differently in Korea?", "Well, a number of reasons. Perhaps the most notable, besides the loss/tie difference that you pointed to, is that they were sold as similar wars but were in fact very different. Korea, while unpopular, was nowhere near as catastrophic from a PR point of view as Vietnam. ~~South Korea was a legitimate state, and as such it made sense and was more understandable for the US to intervene on behalf of an endangered ally. The situation in Vietnam was totally different.~~ (Sorry about that, I don't have the sources with me to back that up, so I'll retract it, and I don't know enough about South Korea to answer off the top of my head. My reasoning was based on Diem's ultimately dying in a coup during the war, while See stayed in power afterwards, so I guess stability would be my one word answer.) It seems, at first, exactly like you described, \"to protect democratic factions in the country against Communist ones,\" or protect the South from the North like in Korea. That's the one sentence, official answer, and the one that you're most likely to get from any simple history of the subject. However, the situation in Vietnam was totally different from that sort of ideal. In reality, there was no democratic South Vietnam. It was established after the Geneva Conference of 1954 (which followed Vietnam's war of independence from France) as a temporary state in preparation for national elections in 1956.\n\nHo Chi Minh, the leader of North Vietnam, was extremely popular, representing both nationalism and successful resistance to a much more powerful foreign occupier, which is something of a recurring theme in Vietnamese history. He was a brutal autocrat, to be sure, frequently killing political opponents, by the thousands if need be. That said, he was not the agent of some larger Communist conspiracy. He played the Soviets for military support during both wars, but did not answer to them, and was a revolutionary nationalist who happened to be Communist rather than a revolutionary Communist seeking to cause the fall of Southeast Asia.\n\nIn the leadup to 1956, it was clear that Ho was going to sweep the elections. He was much more popular than his Southern counterpart, Ngo Dinh Diem, who was also autocratic and led an extremely corrupt South Vietnamese (SVN) government, without popular support. By all accounts, South Vietnam should have ended in 1956, with the country unifying after Ho's inevitable victory in the national elections. However, Diep did not partake in the elections, ensuring the prolongation of the SVN state, which thereafter existed almost solely because of US aid.\n\nThe question of whether the US should have intervened is an extremely loaded one, but it boils down to a set of assumptions that policy makers had. First, those in charge assumed that Ho was part of a larger Communist plot and that he thus had to be stopped to halt Soviet expansion. Now, the theory of monolithic Communism, which was also key to the domino theory of one country's fall engendering a worldwide collapse of free societies into Communist control, was demonstrably false (Here, I was pointing mainly to Tito being independent and the emergent Sino-Soviet split, which while it was later than the earliest military advisers, still was a political reality at during escalation), and many policymakers knew that. There was no real international agenda, and different countries, whether the USSR, China, Yugoslavia, or Vietnam, had their own take on how to govern and their own priorities.\n\nSecond, policymakers assumed that SVN was a viable, independent and preexisting state, which was untrue. It was corrupt, lacked popular support, and should by all rights have disappeared after the 1956 elections. The continued to funnel money and supplies into the government long after they knew that none of it was being put to good use (this appears in both Appy and the Pentagon Papers. Appy says that SVN citizens were well aware of and hated the governmental corruption, and specifically that \"Diem's popular support was thin, his military largely inept, his government riddled with corruption.\" The Pentagon papers also fully acknowledge Diem's unpopularity and inefficiency).\n\nLastly, Americans assumed that the Vietnam situation would affect their place in international politics as a whole. The whole doctrine of \"credibility\" led policymakers to think that a fall of SVN to Communism would lead the USSR and the world in general to lose respect and fear for the US, which singlehandedly explains why the war dragged on as long as it did. No one wanted to be the first American president to lose a war, and so they supported the stalemate in the hopes of kicking the can further down the road.\n\nNow, to fully answer your question, basically the war was fought on false premises **AND** the American public found out about it. Journalists became more critical of American presence as they found out more about the situation. In addition, the publication of the Pentagon Papers, a collection of classified documents concerning American involvement in Vietnam, turned more Americans against the war, and led to an increasingly popular sentiment that this war was being fought for thoroughly wrong reasons, was costing thousands of American lives, was being fought wrong, and that Americans had no real stake in the outcome. Combine all that, and you get the least popular conflict in American history. However, this history is being forgotten at an alarming rate, with ~~support for the Vietnam War increasing~~ the number of Americans who think intervention was a mistake decreasing later and later after the war's end (this was a statistic that I saw, must have simply misremembered it, thanks).\n\nNow, I'm only a college student, and so this likely isn't a perfect answer. I would like to keep contributing to this sub, so feedback is welcome and appreciated.\n\nIn terms of sources, this is primarily in James Patterson's *Grand Expectations, The United States: 1945-1975* which is a solid general history of recent America, and Christian Appy's *Patriots: The Vietnam War Remembered from All Sides* which is a fascinating collection of firsthand accounts from people involved with the war, which I cannot recommend highly enough. If you're interested, I would also look into the Pentagon Papers themselves, which, once you're more acquainted with the history behind them, provide a fascinating insight into what happened, and what went wrong.\n\n**TL;DR:** War fought for wrong reasons, Americans find out about it.\n\n**EDIT:** Sweet Jesus this blew up, some great comments below, so listen to those smarter people first. I'll try to fix what I can, though there is some stuff that I don't have answers for. ", "TL:DR Vietnam is tainted by the people involved, the administrations most remembered for fighting it are Nixon and Johnson. Johnson was said to have lost the war and Nixon to have continued the war in spite of the obvious.\n\nIn 1965 when ground troops were introduced and up until the Tet Offensive of 1968 most Americans believed the US to be \"winning the war\". Body counts were included in news reports to show the numbers as clearly a win in the American column. American had air superiority and could report massive tons of bombs being dropped on Northern targets. In effect there was a wow effect to all of this which was dashed when the entire south was attacked by an enemy that had been tagged as \"losing\" recently before the attacks in January of 1968. Walter Cronkite calling the war a futile effort struck a chord with the American people. \n\nThe other half of the war was managed by Nixon and Kissinger who pulled troops out slowly even as support continued to evaporate in opinion polls and as events such as Kent State and My Lai played out across the public sphere. Kissinger and Nixon approved targets personally, and could be held responsible for mistakes such as the Christmas bombings in 1972 in which many civilians were killed. Basically the argument can be made and has been made that Kissinger and Nixon fought for a peace that Americans could stomach for 4 more years only to get more people killed (Vietnamese civilians and US personnel) for a war that was considered that it would not be won. \n\nIn conclusion I think Americans that lived through the war and wrote about it after were influenced by the characters of the people who prosecuted the heaviest involvement from 1965 to 1972. The semi live coverage of the war on the nightly news combined with more color journalism provided people with a colorful backdrop and in depth coverage of characters including Robert MacNamara, Henry Kissinger, and General Westmoreland outside the presidency led to an easier to identify cast of personal villains than Korea.\n\nSources: Probably being overly influenced by the 6 hour mini series Vietnam in HD I just finished last week, my recent trips to the Life Magazine Photo exhibition at the War Remnants Museum in Saigon, Robert MacNamara's 'In retrospect', CBS News Vietnam War documentaries, 'Dear America: Letters home from Vietnam', the section detailing the Paris Peace Negotiations in Kissinger's \"Diplomacy\", the Vietnam War with Walter Cronkite. ", "I think your question makes the assumption that Korean war was popular. If you look at the polls [here](_URL_0_) you can see that at least at those points in time in 1951 and 1952 it was actually unpopular. Even on a similar level to Vietnam. I know those are just single data points but just trying to question the underlying assumption.", "Most of the best points have already been brought up, but one more:\n\nCalling the Korean War a \"tie\" is a bit misleading. The North, which invaded first, held nearly the entire peninsula at one point in the war. When hostilities ceased, the the boundaries were back to where they started. That's not really a \"tie\" — because in terms of territory, the North Koreans' advance was completely halted. They gained nothing, as opposed to gaining everything. My point, in short, is that the difference in \"victory level\" between Korea and Vietnam was very big.\n", "As far as I can tell, the Korean War came at a time when people were a bit war weary after WW2 and did not really want anything to do with the Korean War. It was not a spectacular war like Vietnam with helicopter combat and the suchlike, but more a form of trench warfare that stalemated fairly quickly around the 38th parallel. To me, it is a highly interesting war, but I think to the majority of Americans, it was not. Also, it was not shrouded in secrecy and dirty dealings like Vietnam. It was a genuine war very early on in the Cold War (Russia did not even have a nuke when it started), unlike Vietnam which was after the chaotic events of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Moreover, the social climate was different. The 1950s were a time of prosperity and generally, people were happy. The 1960s saw the rise of the peace movements and Civil Rights movements. People were challenging the government in multiple ways and when the shady dealings around the start of the war and the operations into Cambodia and Laos came to light, it caught on with the American public.\n\nSources: Max Hastings, 'The Korean War' and Anthony Salmon 'To The Last Round'. I will add the sources for my knowledge on Vietnam in a minute, but 'We Ain't What We Ought To Be' by Stephen Tuck covers the correlation between the Civil Rights movement and the protests against Vietnam quite nicely.", "A lot of people also forget that America was not the sole combatant in Korea. The forces defending South Korea were UN soldiers comprised of 15 nations, the majority were Americans and the UN soldiers were led by MacArthur. It wasn't \"America vs. the Commies\" similar to Vietnam, a large portion of the world saw the invasion of South Korea as morally wrong, legitimatizing the conflict. As others already said, media coverage was not as comprehensive in Korea as it was in Vietnam either. I'm not a historian or published by any means, but I spent a few months writing [this paper](_URL_1_) (sorry for pastebin, don't know where else I should put it, if anyone actually cares to read it I'd just copy it and paste it into a word processor) \n\n[Source](_URL_0_) for statements made about Korea", "The Korean War was a conventional war in the sense that there were clear objectives, an obvious opponent, and a moral sense of right in the US' and UN's actions to aid the South Koreans when the North Koreans invaded with the aid of the USSR and Communist China. People could track the war's progress daily on a map. They knew exactly who they were fighting, more so when the Chinese entered the fray in late 1950. Combined with the attitude of the day against Communists, as far as the population is concerned, we won the war by securing South Korea's independence.\n\nFast forward to the Vietnam War and we barely have any of that. The sense of right in our actions was still there, but the flame that drove the hatred in the '50s was starting to sputter and die out. We had ambiguous objectives since it was decided not to invade North Vietnam proper to prevent a repeat of Chinese intervention that occured during the Korean War meaning there was no front line that the population could track on a map. To make it even worse, for the most part of the conflict, just as we see today in the Middle East, it was both hard to track down the opposing force as well as to identify him from friendly South Koreans. As the war dragged on for nearly two decades, the troops on the ground became demoralized, the attitude at home soured, and the politicians realized that supporting the war was political suicide. Men were dying, yet the war was dragging on with, it seemed, no end.\n\nOn top of that, the Korean War was overshadowed by the immense fighting of the Second World War and the dragging fight that was the Vietnam War and the hatred that spawned for it. The Korean War was essentially forgotten in the minds of the average American." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FAskHistorians", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules#wiki_answers" ], [], [], [], [ "http://www.gallup.com/poll/19924/War-Through-Partisan-Lenses.aspx" ], [], [], [ "https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/korean-war-2", "http://pastebin.com/vnGwSKHq" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cijni59" ], "score": [ 7 ], "text": [ "I think you are getting confused about chronology, as the system changed over time.\n\n**Herod** the Great\n\nRules as a client-king after he overthrow Antigonus in 37 BC. Basically Rome employed client-states a great deal, particularly in the East, for a number of reasons. Firstly, people tended to be less rebellious if part of their political structure and national identity was left in tact. Secondly, it removed some of the administrative burden from Rome. Thirdly, it sometimes functioned to provide a buffer against other border states, i.e. the Parthians.\n\nMake no mistake though, being a client-kingdom was very much a dependent existence. The crown was received from Rome, and answered to Rome. Herod had to show political capability and personal allegience to his Roman patron(s). Particularly he had to move quickly to switch support from Mark Antony to Augustus when the latter came to power.\n\nHerod died in 4 BC, and his kingdom was carved up into three pieces. \n\n**Herod Archelaus**\n\nOne of Herod's sons, Archelaus, took over from Herod as *ethnarch* of Judea (as well as Samaria and Idumia). Josephus writes about him in *Antiquitis* 17.8.4 and following, as well as *Wars* 2.1. \n\nHis title had to be granted by Augustus, and while it's not entirely clear, opposition to him may be some of the reason he did not carry the title king. overall he was not well liked or very competent, especially with a reputation for cruelty and flagrant violation of Mosaic law. So in AD 6 the Romans *deposed* and exiled him. \n\nIt's at this point that Judea turned into a Roman province. It was ruled by Prefects until AD 41, and then procurators from AD 44 onwards. Not all of these are known by name. Technically it was neither a senatorial nor imperial province, but a kind of special administrative region, dependent upon Syria, that is why it's prefects tended to be *equites*, rather than senators.\n\nIt's in this period that **Pilate** reigns as Prefect, from AD 26-36. \n\nBetween AD 41-44 Judea was again a kingdom, as Claudius made Herod Agrippa to be King of hte Jews, this was part of Claudius' more widespread policy to elevate procurators to governorship. Things get a little messy from the AD 60s onwards, with the revolt, the presence of a Roman legate; from 135 onwards the area was reorganized, and the province of *Syria Palaestina* emerges." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ch412mp" ], "score": [ 67 ], "text": [ "In a letter to Tacitus written years after the event, Pliny the Younger described how his uncle, Pliny the Elder, was killed during the eruption of Vesuvius. Pliny the Elder was in command of the Roman navy stationed in the Bay of Naples. When he saw the plume of smoke and ash rising from the mountain across the bay, he initially sent for a single ship, but when he was informed of the scale of the volcanic eruption, he mobilized the entire Roman fleet and sailed to Stabiae, a seaside town a few miles from Pompeii.\n\nOnce there, he connected with another Roman naval commander, whose ships were unable to sail out of the harbor due to unfavorable winds. While they ventured down to the shore (with ash and pumice falling heavily around them) to see if any approach to Pompeii was possible, Pliny was apparently overcome and collapsed. Some have theorized that he was killed by noxious gases (Pliny the Younger assumed he suffocated in the ash cloud), but it's not entirely clear what the specific cause of death was.^1\n\nAs for that specific rescue operation, it appears to have been unsuccessful. I'm not clear on whether or not any additional operations were mobilized --Emperor Titus organized an extensive relief program, but that was aimed more at recovery than it was a rescue operation.^2\n\n1. [Pliny the Younger, *Letters* 6.16](_URL_0_)\n2. [Cassius Dio, *Roman History* 66.22](_URL_1_)\n\nEDIT: I can't speak to how long it took the specific details of the catastrophe to reach Rome, but the sources report that ash fell on cities across Italy (including the capital) and even reached as far away as Alexandria, in Egypt. So people knew something was going on, but not necessarily that it was coming from Vesuvius." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/pompeii/plinyletters.htm", "http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/66*.html#22" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c8hl1qu" ], "score": [ 4 ], "text": [ "Almost certainly not. This comes from something Pliny the Elder wrote, in 60 BC, not the 2nd century AD:“The same Cornelius Nepos, when speaking of the northern circumnavigation, tells us that Q. Metellus Celer, the colleague of L. Afranius in the consulship, but then a proconsul in Gaul, had a present made to him by the king of the Suevi, of certain Indians, who sailing from India for the purpose of commerce, had been driven by tempests into Germany.” Somehow, someone with the historical contortionism of Gavin Menzies twisted this single paragraph into saying that these two Indians were in fact Native Americans. Never mind that there is not a single word in that paragraph suggesting such a thing, there is no way a Native American could have crossed the Atlantic at that time period." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ckf7wie", "ckf83ng" ], "score": [ 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Sweden has won more by most counts. /u/vonadler did a good summary of all the wars fought between Swedem and Denmark in [this](_URL_0_) thread. ", "I'll copy my old post and add victories and draws.\n\nIt depends a bit on wether or not you count the various fighting within the Kalmar Union as Dano-Swedish wars or not. \n\nI'll count Sweden as existing from the crowning of Knut Eriksson (Erikska) as King 1173. This is the first time we can confirm properly that someone was King over Östergötland, Västergötland and Svealand at the same time, and the three Kingdoms did not splinter afterwards.\n\nI'll do a list and a conservative and a generous estimate.\n\n**1205-1210:** The Danes support Sverker Karlsson (Sverkerska) in his fight with Erik Knutsson (Erikska) over the Swedish throne. Sources indicate Danish troops were directly involved in the Battle of Gestilren 1210, so I'll count this as one for the generous estimate. The Danish-supported side lost, so I'll count this for Sweden.\n\n**1360-1361:** The Danish King Valdemar Atterdag captures Skåne, Halland and Blekinge (purchased by Sweden earlier) and Gotland (mostly an independent Peasants' Republic, but nominally belonging to the Swedish crown). This will count for both the generous and the conservative estimate. The Danes clearly won here, as Valdemar occupied a lot of terrain.\n\n**1389-1398:** King Albrekt of Sweden and his supporters are defeated by the forces of the nobility and Queen Margareta of Denmark and Norway and the Kalmar Union comes into existance. I'll count this one for both the generous and the conservative estimate. Danish-supported forces won here, so I'll count this one for Denmark.\n\n**1434-1436:** A revolt led by Engelbrekt Engelbrektsson leads to the first estates parliament in Sweden to declare King Erik of Denmark, Norway and Sweden deposed as King of Sweden. I'll count this as one for the generous count as it is a revolt within the Kalmar Union. The rebellion ousted the Danish King, so I'll count this one for Sweden.\n\n**1448-1450:** As King Kristoffer dies suddenlly, the estates parliament elect the Swedish prominent nobleman Karl Knutsson (Bonde) King of Sweden. Both he and King Kristian I of Denmark are elected King of Norway by their respective supporters and war breaks out over Norway. Karl Knutsson (Bonde) quickly loses, but it is a real war. I'll count this one for both the generous and the conservative estimate. The Swedish side lost the quest for the Norwegian throne, so I'll count this one for Denmark.\n\n**1452-1457:** War between King Karl Knutsson (Bonde) and King Kristian of Denmark (with a cease fire 1453-1455). In the end, Karl Knutsson (Bonde) is deposed and Kristian is elected King of Sweden too. I'll count this one for both the generous and the conservative estimate. The Danish side won this one.\n\n**1463-1471:** Since King Karl Knutsson (Bonde) had returned as King, new fighting broke out as King Kristian tried to enforce his claims to the Swedish throne. Karl Knutsson (Bonde) died 1470, but his supporters rallied around Sten Gustavsson (sture) and decisively defeated the Danish army at Brunkeberg (nowadays inside Stockholm 1471). I'll count this one for both the generous and the conservative estimate. This one is a Swedish victory.\n\n**1501-1520:** Sten Gustavsson (Sture), having been deposed by Swedish supporters of the Kalmar Union 1497 returns and revolts against King Hans of Denmark. Sten Gustavsson (Sture) assumes control of Sweden again and war continues until Sten Svantesson (Sture) is defeated by King Kristian II of Denmark at the Battle of Bogesund 1520. Sten Svantesson (Sture) is murdered and King Kristian II orchestrates [Stockholm's bloodbath](_URL_0_). I'll count this one for both the generous and the conservative estimate. This is a Danish victory.\n\n**1521-1523:** Gustav Eriksson (Wasa) leads a rising against King Kristian II and finally ends the Kalmar Union. As part of the fighting happens when Gustav Eriksson (Wasa) has been elected King of Sweden, I'll count this one for both the generous and the conservative estimate. A Swedish victory. From here you can say that Sweden exists as a nation-state.\n\n**1534-1536:** Sweden intervenes in the Counts' feud in Denmark to ensure that King Kristian II can not regain the throne in Denmark. As it is an intervention in a civll war, I'll only count this for the generous estimate. While the intervention keeps Denmark from meddling in Swedish affairs, it does not gain Sweden anything from the fighting, so this is a draw.\n\n**1563-1570:** The Nordic Seven Years' War between Denmark and Sweden. Full on war. I'll count this one for both the generous and the conservative estimate. This one is mostly a draw as no territory was exchanged. Sweden had to pay 150 000 thalers to gain Älvsborg back, but the Danish King had to abstain his claim on the Swedish throne. I'll count it as a draw.\n\n**1611-1613:** The Kalmar War between Denmark and Sweden. Full on war. I'll count this one for both the generous and the conservative estimate. No territory was exchanged, but Sweden had to pay a monstrous war indemnity to gain Älvsborg back (again) of 1 000 000 thalers, so I'll count this as a Danish victory. \n\n**1643-1645:** Torstensson's War between Denmark and Sweden. Full on war. I'll count this one for both the generous and the conservative estimate. Sweden gainst territory, so it is a Swedish victory.\n\n**1657-1658:** Karl X Gustav's War between Denmark and Sweden. Full on war. I'll count this one for both the generous and the conservative estimate. Sweden gainst huge amounts of territory, so I'll count it as a Swedish victory.\n\n**1658-1660:** Karl X Gustav's second War between Denmark and Sweden. Full on war. I'll count this one for both the generous and the conservative estimate. Denmark regains some of the territory lost in the previous war, so I'll count it as a Danish victory.\n\n**1675-1679:** The Scanian War between Denmark and Sweden. Full on war. I'll count this one for both the generous and the conservative estimate. No territory exchanged, so I will count this as a draw.\n\n**1700:** First Danish participation in the Great Nordic War. A very short war, where Swedish forces land outside Copenhagen and force Denmark to leave the anti-Swedish alliance. As it is short, and Denmark took part in the Great Nordic War later as well, I'll only count this for the generous estimate. No territory exchanged, so I'll call it a draw.\n\n**1709-1719:** Second Danish participation in the Great Nordic War. Full on war. I'll count this one for both the generous and the conservative estimate. No territory exchanged, so I'll call it a draw.\n\n**1788-1790:** The teather war. Sweden attack Russia, and Denmark honours its alliance with Russia and declares war. There's little actual warfare between Sweden and Denmark, though. I'll only count this for the generous estimate. Very little warfare and no territory exchanged, so I'll call it a draw.\n\n**1808-1809:** The Danish war. Denmark, allied with Russia, which prodded by Napoleon attacks Sweden to force it into the continental system, declares war on Sweden. The fighting is limited, as the Danish forces in Norway lack supplies due to a blockade by the Royal Navy and the Danish, Spanish and French forces in Denmark cannot get across the Sound to invade Sweden. However, Sweden attempts to invade Norway but is turned back. I'll count this one for both the generous and the conservative estimate. No territory exchanged as part of this, so I'll call it a draw.\n\n**1814:** The invasion of Norway. At the peace in Kiel 1814, Denmark had to give Norway to Sweden, but the Norwegians themselves tried to declare independence. As it is hard to say that it is a war against Denmark despite the Norwegian army fighting being trained, equipped and officered by the Danes, I'll count this only for the generous estimate. Sweden gains Norway, so I will count this one for Sweden.\n\n1814 was the last war Sweden fought.\n\nThis gives us a total of; \n\nGenerous: 21 wars between Sweden and Denmark.\n\nConservative: 15 wars between Sweden and Denmark.\n\n7 won by Sweden, 7 won by Denmark and 7 draws." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1emc97/is_it_true_that_sweden_and_denmark_is_the_two/" ], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_Bloodbath" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ezudfdq" ], "score": [ 11 ], "text": [ "The Quakers are an interesting community in many ways. As you noted, they're famous for their pacifism. Analyzing the reasons behind why a man or a community fought in a war is a complicated subject, and of course the reasons I'm going to give are general ones, but the answer to your question lays in the Quakers anti-slavery position, and how ultimately they came to believe that fighting for the Union and for emancipation superseded their commitment to pacifism. \n\nJust to give some context, Quakers had engaged in anti-slavery work for a long time. Even before the American Revolution, some Quakers had spoke up against slavery, condemning it as contrary to Christian principles. They would later form the Pennsylvania Anti-Slavery Society, which presented a petition to the first Congress, requesting the abolition of slavery. In general, Quakers firmly believed in the principle of the \"guiding light\" that naturally conducts every person to do the right thing. As such, a slaveholder would eventually come to his senses and realize that slavery was not Christian, and would then emancipate his slaves. For this reason, Quakers supported moderation and Democratic means, such as petitions or sending priests to Southern states to make slaveholders see the error of their ways.\n\nThe Quaker position thus contrasted with the political abolitionism of Salmon P. Chase, or the militant abolitionism of William Lloyd Garrison. In the case of the former, Chase developed a theory that held that slavery in the territories, or even slavery itself, was unconstitutional, and that the government had to ensure freedom wherever it had power (\"Freedom National\"). In the case of the later, slavery was categorized as a monstrous sin that should be eradicated without regard for Constitutional issues. The Quaker view contrasted with Chase's because political abolitionism did not give much emphasis to the moral element, and although this made it more appealing and thus more successful, Quakers always focused on the fact that slavery was *morally* wrong. On the other hand, they agreed with the Garrisonians, since both groups always put morality to the forefront. The problem is that Garrison was very militant in his approach, condemning not only slavery but slaveholders as well. In the Quakers' eyes, slaveholders did not know better; in Garrison's, they were \"man-stealers\" who should be punished for their sins.\n\nA shift within the Quaker community as well as within most pacifist anti-slavery people took place during the 1850's, when outrages such as the Fugitive Slave Act or the Dred Scott decision gave credence to the idea of the Slave Power, a conspiracy to protect and expand slavery. The Fugitive Slave Act is general caused great outrage because it brought slave-catchers to the North, where in many occasions dramatic events took place as abolitionist sought to protect former slaves. One of my favorite stories is that of Reverend Theodore Parker (not a Quaker), who told President Fillmore that he'd rather starve than give up any of his parishioners. The Quakers, known for sheltering fugitives and protecting them through legal action, and for their participation in the Underground Railway, also were forced to choose between their commitment to nonviolence, or their pledge to defend the runaways. They chose the latter. \n\nOn September 11, 1851, a slaveholder approached the little Pennsylvania town of Christiana, where two of his slaves had escaped two years earlier. Armed Black men and White Quakers vowed to resist, and when the slaveholder refused to leave peacefully, shooting broke out. The slaveholder died in this \"Battle of Christiana\", which many Southerners regarded as the natural result of \"fanaticism.\" Vowing to their demands, the government tried to indict the Quakers and their black allies for treason, but the case degenerated into farce and charges were ultimately dropped. The Christiana event, more than anything, shows that when pushed to choose between pacifism and abolition, Quakers often chose the latter. For them, slavery was a sin, and to aid in the capture of a fugitive slave would be to commit a sin themselves. If the Slavocrats used violence to upheld a sin, they were justified in using violence to prevent a sin. \n \nThis turn from pacifism towards action, even violent action, was mirrored by many who felt outraged by the violent acts of the South. Seeing events such as the Fugitive Slave Act or the debacle over Kansas as Southern violence for slavery, former pacifists were now more willing to fight fire with fire. Frederick Douglass, for example, had said that he would not abolish slavery if it cost a single drop of blood. But now he believed that \"The only way to make the fugitive slave law a dead letter is to make half a dozen or more dead kidnappers.\" \n\nQuakers wouldn't take action themselves, of course. They wouldn't do as John Brown did, and organize a raid with the explicit purpose of starting a bloody slave insurrection. But when the hour of truth came and the South seceded, Quakers were imbued by the same spirit of nationalism as the great majority of Northerners. But they also saw the war as an anti-slavery crusade, a necessary war to protect against the violent aims of the rebels, who wished to extent slavery and destroy the Union. If violence was needed to protect the Union, so be it. \n\nAnd so, Quakers overcame their pacifism and enlisted into the Army to fight for the Union. Once in the Army, it seems that the Christian faith of many Quakers was just reinforced by the experience of war. They, and other Christians, acquired a sense of fatalism, believing that God Himself had created the war to purify the nation's sins, and that whether they fell in battle or not was in His hands. \"I know He watches over all,\" said a New Jersey Quaker for example. Others were motivated by comradeship and loyalty to their unit. When faced with the reproach of his wife and sister, and the threats of expulsion from his community, a Quaker soldiers said that he couldn't leave \"the men who stood manfuly by me in the hours of dainger through which I have passed.\" \n\nAbolitionism was a strong motivation for many Quakers. Some came to the conclusion that God had caused the war to end the sin of slavery, and as such fighting was right. A Quaker in the Navy wrote that \"slavery is such a horrible blot on civilization, that I am convinced that the war will exterminate it and its supporters, and that it was brought about for that purpose by God.\" Two Quaker brothers enlisted in the Army, despite the disapproval of their mother, after the Emancipation Proclamation had turned into a war for Liberty. \"Thee knows how I have always felt about war,\" one of them wrote to their mother, \"still I never regret that I am a participant in the struggle . . . [to] advance the cause of universal freedom. . . . Remember, Mother, that while we strike strong telling blows for liberty ... we need not hesitate as to the means employed.\" Even after he fell in battle, the other brother still felt \"glad that I was a soldier and have done my part for the cause of universal liberty.\" Another fighting Quaker condemned the people who stayed home and didn't fight, calling them the \"puny cravens at home, whose fears make them tremble at shadows,\" though he was writing of all people in General, not just his fellow Quakers. \n\nNot all Quakers could overcome their pacifism like this. Many of the members of the communities to which the fighting Quakers I quoted came from, even relatives, condemned them for abandoning pacifism and fighting directly. This is not to say that Quakers turned towards conservatism as a result of the war, not by a long shot. For example, they sent a message to Lincoln asking him “not to allow the present golden opportunity to pass without decreeing the entire abolition of slavery throughout the land.” The Quakers continued to work against slavery. Many were able to overcome their pacifism only after the Emancipation Proclamation made abolition an explicit goal. But before that, as I already mentioned, Quakers enlisted in the Army because they believed that the war could ultimately lead to abolition. \n\nSo, to answer the first part of your question: There were many Quakers who saw the Civil War as another example of Southerners violently asserting a sinful institution, and a large number of Quakers were motivated by patriotism and defense of the Union, since they had come to believe that they were justified in using violence to defend against a sin. Yet, they also realized that slavery could perish as a result of the war, and worked arduously to ensure this. Some believed that God Himself had caused to war to end slavery and punish the nation for its sins. A lot of Quakers were able to overcome their pacifism only when the war's purpose shifted and became a war for liberty as well. However, there still remained many Quakers who clung to pacifism. As for motivation, some Quakers were motivated by religious fervor; others, by comradeship. But as a whole, Quakers remained overwhelmingly anti-slavery, and the war only hardened their convictions and pushed many to forget pacifism and fight directly." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "eeakma5", "eeas19l", "eeb11ma", "eebbnt3" ], "score": [ 356, 811, 57, 20 ], "text": [ "Sorry if this seems pedantic, but was there really a drastic shift from monarchy to democracy across the world as a whole after the 1700s? Could any historians assess the accuracy of that claim?\n\nI'm assuming the question refers to the emergence of democracies in France and the United States, but this is still a very small minority of the world's population. Furthermore would a monarchy be viewed as an antonym for democracy? For example, the monarch of the United Kingdom had power, but so did parliament and the democratic system underpinning the contemporary democracy in the UK.\n\nI assume OP will be asked to clarify but if any historians can answer these claims broadly to any extent it would be appreciated. ", "I can only speak for the Classical World - but in that context, it is clear that democracy was unpopular (a) because no civic democracy could resist the power of the large kingdoms that dominated the Mediterranean basin from the time of Alexander onward, (b) because the Roman Empire discouraged democracy on the local level, and (c) because Classical Athens, the famous ancient democracy, had a frankly mixed political track record. \n\nAlexander and his immediate successors actually encouraged \"democracy\" in the Greek cities of their kingdoms; and although this policy was entirely self-serving (they assumed such regimes would be easier to govern), it ensured that many Greek cities at least claimed to be democracies for centuries to come. These cities were, however, almost always either embedded in or allied with large autocratic kingdoms; and their democracy was usually colored by a strong oligarchic element. \n\nThe coming of Rome accelerated the decline of local democracy. The Romans preferred to deal with oligarchic regimes on the model of their own Republic, and actively encouraged the creation of hereditary local councils in the cities they governed. These attitudes continued under the Principate. In his Roman History, Cassius Dio (writing in the early third century CE) has a counselor advise Augustus to suppress democracies wherever he finds them:\n\n\"The affairs of the other cities you should order in this fashion: In the first place, the populace should have no authority in any matter, and should not be allowed to convene in any assembly at all; for nothing good would come out of their deliberations and they would always be stirring up a good deal of turmoil...\" (52.30.2)\n\nGreek and Roman intellectuals, moreover, tended to receive a distinctly negative view of Athenian democracy from the Classical authors they read. In the course of his defense of Flaccus, for example, Cicero describes Athens in the following terms:\n\n\"But all the republics \\[that is, democracies\\] of the Greeks are governed by the rashness of the assembly while sitting. Therefore, to say no more of this Greece, which has long since been overthrown and crushed through the folly of its own counsels; that ancient country, which once flourished with riches, and rower, and glory, fell owing to that one evil, the immoderate liberty and licentiousness of the popular assemblies. When inexperienced men, ignorant and uninstructed in any description of business whatever, took their seats in the theater, then they undertook inexpedient wars; then they appointed seditious men to the government of the republic \\[democracy\\]; then they banished from the city the citizens who had deserved best of the state. These things were constantly taking place in Athens...\" (16-17)\n\nAfter the rise of the Hellenistic kingdoms, in short, democracy could only have a local role; and after the rise of Rome, it had no place at all. \n\n & #x200B;", "Follow-up question:\n\nWas democracy unpopular *per se* (in that, even the \"people\" didn't want it), or was it simply not feasible (in that, the people who wanted it didn't have the power to resist autocratic rulers)?", "Follow up: did protection of property rights have anything to do with the dislike of democracy? Was democracy equally popular between different social classes?" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [] ]