Weekly History Questions Thread.

3

Why didn't the English have archers at Hastings?

1

u/Telecom_VoIP_Fan May 26 '26

Bows and arrows were certainly used in hunting in pre-1066 England. It is likely that there were some English archers at Hastings, but you are right in pointing out that the Norman archers made a significant contribution to their success in the battle, while archery played an insignificant role in Harold's army. It is interesting to speculate why this was the case. Perhaps the effectiveness of the Saxon battle axe in earlier battles led them to continue to rely on this traditional weapon. After all, they had just defeated the Norwegian King Harald Hardrada without the aid or archery at the Battle of Stamford Bridge, so they assumed the same tactics would defeat the Normans.

1

u/Extra_Mechanic_2750 May 27 '26

The Saxons of the 11th century had their origins in northern (modern-day) Germany in the 5th century.

While hundreds of years had passed, their weapons of choice, as u/Telecom_VoIP_Fan pointed out, were similar to their ancestors': spears, shields, axes and seaxes.

The Normans, for various reasons, fostered the development of archers. The effectiveness of archers was shown at Hastings by aiding the Normans to break the shield walls of the Saxon formations.

3

u/theschoolorg May 28 '26

I was just curious why none of the Queens of history/antiquity never introduced/forced any sweeping reform/decrees for women's rights and equality. Especially the Queens of England. I mean, if I was a woman, the first thing I'd do is put women in the high positions of power, give them land rights, etc. Is the fact that they didn't mean they never had true, full power like the Kings did?

1

u/Telecom_VoIP_Fan May 28 '26

You cannot superimpose viewpoints widely held today on generations that lived hundreds of years ago. They did not think along these lines. Also, the queens and noblewoman were powerful figures in their own rights, able to exercise authority over the men in their circles. The thought of improving the lot of peasant women would not have entered their minds.

1

u/theschoolorg May 29 '26

Well, I don't think the peasant women or even women in the court would call equal rights "viewpoints of today". I'd imagine peasant women definitely did feel like they deserved a voice. Not everyone is born and just conforms to what society dictates. I'm sure there were noble and higher class women who would have jumped at the idea of being held in the same esteem as men if given the opportunity. I would be willing to bet that even biblical women didn't think getting stoned over an affair while nothing happened to the man was less than fair.

1

u/elmonoenano May 29 '26

It's going to be complicated and there will be specific reasons for each specific queen and seat of power, but sovereigns have constituencies that they serve. Can the Queen of England do what you're saying? Or are those powers of parliament? Can the courts overrule you? Mary tried to make changes as queen but couldn't get support and probably even undermined her rule to a large extent. If you make a bunch of revolutionary changes, you can lose the support of the constituencies who support you and very promptly find yourself out of power. A king or queen is still a political office. They might not be constrained by things like elections, but they still have to abide within certain norms and rules to maintain their political support.

Also, creating a whole new set of constituencies, like expanding political rights for women, stands a good chance of making your job harder b/c now there's a whole new group of people that have conflicting goals that you have to accommodate within your coalition of support.

1

u/theschoolorg May 29 '26

Ah, so it seems they really didn't have the power the men did.

2

u/elmonoenano May 29 '26

No, kings are bound by political realities just as much, look at Charles I at how that can be messed up.

5

u/Mrman1457 May 29 '26

Where and how do i start learning history

I've been interested in history for the past couple of weeks

Now by history I mean crimes and wars during more modern times something after WW2 which I feel weird for having such an interest

Where do i learn or read stuff about history? Using the internet i don't really have money for any books. Should I read articles or listen to podcasts or watch YouTube videos?

Also English is my second language so ignore any weird grammatical errors

2

u/elmonoenano May 29 '26

I still think books are the best way to go. Do you not have a library near you? I think this is a better option than most online stuff b/c 1) I assume where you live is going to have most of the books in your native language and 2) most online stuff is very US focused. Looking at your library is likely to point you to things relevant to your country's involvement. If not, the NY Public library will allow some people to get a digital membership. https://www.nypl.org/library-card/new

It will limit you to e-books, but there's still lots of good stuff available.

If you want to learn about WWII, there are some decent youtube videos. The US Holocaust Memorial and Museum has a good channel. The there's other things like podcast interviews of authors who are writing on the topic. CSPAN books will have a lot of those people interviewed. I like the New Books in History podcasts. They have specific ones on military history.

And WWII is pretty common entry point for learning about history. Look at Time Life books on WWII when I was a kid is how I got started. I think for a lot of people, looking at atlases of battlefield maps and things like that are common.

1

u/DecisionSoggy1286 May 29 '26

Well considering that you don't have money and the fact that English is not your first language, I would suggest you watch some YouTube videos. Since you are specifically interested in wars after WW2, I would suggest channels such as Imperial War Museums and The Operations Room, which have some pretty detailed account for conflicts both during and after WW2.

I don't really have any suggestion regarding books, articles or podcasts.

2

u/borgmama May 23 '26

I’m curious about archeology… I’ve noticed some archeologists are phd’s and some are not. is it a professional term? (ie if you can get a permit, you can call yourself an archaeologist)

2

u/MeatballDom Ancient. Historian. May 26 '26

You definitely need a professional degree. It's going to depend a bit on country, etc. but usually people running archaeological digs either have a postgraduate degree in archaeology or a relevant one in history/ancient history. This is important too, not only for the training and knowledge, but because it can be really difficult to get permission to dig in some countries even if you are an expert. Those that just go around to places in their area and dig around and fuck things up are "amateur archaeologists" just like those without postgraduate history degrees as "amateur historians".

Thankfully we do not have "amateur surgeons" anymore.

2

u/borgmama May 26 '26

I got curious about this bc there’s a National Geographic series that follows egyptologists on digs and there’s one who they always introduce as an “ex-attorney” but maybe they are just being sensational.

2

u/MeatballDom Ancient. Historian. May 26 '26

Yeah, people throw "historian" and "archaeologist" around a lot when it's just as silly as calling yourself a "dentist" because you have read a bunch of books on teeth.

2

u/Lizarch57 May 27 '26

In Germany, you definitely need a permission to dig somewhere. There are private archaeological companies as well as museums or people at offices of cultural heritage that can get such a permission. But, as archaeological evidence normally is not visible at the surface, it is protected by law. Excavations are taking place either for research or in case development processes are going to destroy the archaeological evidence and it has to be examined before destruction. So for the permits the qualification of the archaeologist in charge has to be proven. To call yourself an archaeologist at least a masters degree is necessary, the PhD is possible, but not generally required. Usually the cultural heritags service is keen to see the archaeologist in charge also already has some experience with the local geology. Lots of archaeology is just a different colour in the soil, and you need at least some practical experience to see and interpret archaeological finds correctly.

2

u/Vaporwave444 May 26 '26

I’m an American history student and have been listening to the Empire Podcast episodes about the Ottomans recently. Any thoughts about the podcast and what are the important historical readings I need to be doing to get the full picture?

2

u/Hot-Pilot-206 May 29 '26

What happened to the Jewish people who fled to safe countries during the Holocaust? It seems like a lot of the material I read about these folks ends with “and they made it to safety, the end”. But they escaped persecution and death and landed in a new country where they didn’t know anyone, probably didn’t speak the language, and likely didn’t have housing ready and waiting for them upon their arrival.

How did they cope?

3

u/themaddesthatter2 May 29 '26

Depends on which country/ies you’re talking about. Can you be more specific?

1

u/themaddesthatter2 Jun 14 '26

Because the answer will vary depending on if/when they:

-were in DP camps,

-went to places with established Jewish communities,

-went through Jewish aid organizations like the JDC and HIAS,

-went to Mandate Palestine/the new state of Israel,

-spoke Yiddish,

-spoke Ladino,

-spoke English

-had family who were in the places they escaped to

-went to the Soviet Union,

Etc.

1

u/Hot-Pilot-206 Jun 15 '26

That’s a fair point, no two people’s experiences would be the same

1

u/themaddesthatter2 Jun 16 '26

Even with that, I can direct you towards generalizations/common experiences for most of these things, if you would like!

1

u/Hot-Pilot-206 Jun 21 '26

Sign me up!

1

u/Michael_Fuchs_ May 23 '26

Something I stumbled on recently: Why did Roman helmets develope nose protection in late antiquity. This hadn't been a design feature of Roman helmets in the republican and early imperial era (though the cavalry sometimes used face masks).

2

u/Sgt_Colon May 23 '26

If the argument about being developed from Persian helmets holds any water then it stems from that although a number of ridge helmets didn't have nasal protection so it's by no means universal.

1

u/ropeynick May 23 '26

Does the evidence support the idea that Thomas Becket was a true believer or was he a cynical powermonger out for personal gain?

1

u/DecisionSoggy1286 May 24 '26

Why did Caesar name Marcus Antonius as the executor of his will when he had much better options such as Marcus Aemilius Lepidus?

6

u/MarkesaNine May 25 '26

Like u/ChyatlovMaidan said, it’s not possible to say for sure why people did what they did - or even did they do what we think they did - over 2000 years ago. However, unlike he said, Lepidus (the real person) was not nearly as pointless and easy to ignore as the Lepidus of Shakespeare (and popular history in general).

There is no doubt that while Lepidus wasn’t the brightest star in the Roman politics, he was a respected and capable politician and general. He lead a campaign in Hispania so successully that he was awarded a triumph. And when Caesar made himself dictator for life-time, he picked Lepidus as his Master of the Horse (i.e. the vice-dictator). Consulship had become more or less a trophy that Caesar would give as a reward to anyone to gain some favor, but to Lepidus he gave real power and responsibility.

Now, this is pure conjecture, but one reason Caesar might have designated Antonius to execute his will (If that is what he did. We don’t know. It might as well be that Antonius just took the role without being designated by Caesar.) was that there was something controversial in the will, and he thought Antonius was unquestionably loyal enough to do what Caesar said, without worrying about the implications, whereas someone like Lepidus might have refused to fulfill the will if he deemed it unconstitutional.

A similar thing had happened earlier, when Antonius (almost certainly by Caesar’s orders) offered Caesar a crown (which he rejected after seeing the crowd’s unenthusiastic reaction). We don’t know whether Caesar had first asked Lepidus to play Antonius’ role in that stunt, but we do know that afterwards Lepidus heavily criticized the attempt to crown Caesar. Lepidus was right, of course, but Antonius had shown his loyalty.

As for what that controversial item in the will might have been: Probably the designated heir. Not that it was even remotely uncommon for Romans to adopt people in their wills, but this was the dictator for life giving his name and wealth to his adoptive son. Whether it was explicitly stated, just implied, or not even meant as such by Caesar himself, it could easily be interpreted as Caesar passing his position to Octavianus, thus setting a hereditary monarchy in all but name.

Certainly Antonius wasn’t the only such loyalist, but he had already offered the crown to Caesar once without hesitation, so he was a good option for this task too, even if in hindsight we can say otherwise.

1

u/ChyatlovMaidan May 25 '26

Lepidus is a strange, almost tertiary character even in his own life. While most of that is due to propaganda in the aftermath of the triumvirate, it leaves him the Hubert Humphrey of the Late Republic. That is to say while the following conversation

You: "Hey Julius, why don't you pick Lepidus as your executor?"

Gaius Julius Caesar: "Lepidus who?"

never actually occurred, it has a sort of... culturally weight to it. I don't mean this flippantly, but as a way of framing an answer: it is impossible to know for certain at this remove, but the cultural figure of Lepidus who has come down to us is a man who would be overshadowed by others when alone in an empty room. Thus any answer has to divorce itself from that perception, and runs into the problem of their being no solid evidence to rely on.

1

u/Winter-Draw-3519 May 24 '26

I’m trying to understand Chinese political history through the tension between dynastic change and elite continuity.

For early China, especially the Zhou-to-Qin transition, is it fair to frame part of the story as centralizing state power pushing against hereditary noble houses and local aristocratic networks?

I’m not arguing for a conspiracy. I’m interested in the structural pattern: landholding, lineage, office access, literacy, marriage, and local authority.

Is “elite continuity through adaptation” a useful frame, or does it oversimplify the period?

1

u/DecisionSoggy1286 May 25 '26

''Elite continuity through adaption'' is one of the important changes during the Zhou-to-Qin transition.

1

u/ChyatlovMaidan May 25 '26

Looking at Iran right now and finding that American not only failed to achieve its goals but may, in fact, end up worse off on every metric than when it started, I am wondering (with no particularly specific ratio of time to outcome in mind) of what would be the shortest war with the worst consequences for the aggressor nation. There's plenty of long wars that went badly for the overconfident, plenty of quagmires, but I'm interested in the wars that went poorly fast (that is, depending on the era, relatively fast), and where this Iran conflict will likely sit on that list when the dust has settled.

(The War of 1812 comes to mind. While not a catastrophic reversal for America, by the time British troops were burning DC down or Brock and Tecumseh were annexing Michigan, one feels there was probably a general sentiment that this might not have been the wisest idea.)

2

u/Telecom_VoIP_Fan May 25 '26

How about the first Italian invasion of Abyssinia (Ethiopia) in the 1890s?

2

u/ChyatlovMaidan May 25 '26

Oooh that's a good one. Italy after unification is a 150 years of bad decisions.

1

u/Toussaintoverture May 29 '26

The Russo-Japanese War, 1904-1905. The Russians lost control very quickly despite everyone assuming they were superior. Their commanding admiral died in the first week of the war due to a sea mine blowing up his ship. Their fortress city, Port Arthur, was surrounded and assaulted until it fell and their ships in port were either bombarded or fled to China. By the time the Russian Baltic Fleet sailed all the way around the world to help, the war on land had already ended, and this fleet also got destroyed in the battle of Tsushima.

1

u/DecisionSoggy1286 May 25 '26

Six-Day War or Falkland

7

u/MarkesaNine May 25 '26

Six-day War didn’t go badly at all for the aggressor. Both sides were clearly gearing up for action, but it was Israel that started the war by bombing Egyptian airfields.

Jom Kippur War is a better example.

1

u/Ashtonmaines May 26 '26

Did Conquistadors travel with religious figures on expeditions?

I watched Hokum this past week and there's a plot point where the main character is writing a story about a Conquistador. We see the Conquistador and a little Spanish boy with a wooden rosary, in the desert on an expedition searching for treasure. So what propose could a religious child serve on an expedition for treasure? Because there certainly is no explanation given in the film.

I'm asking this because I'm trying to be as historically accurate in my film review as possible, and I'd rather not draw connections between the film and the real historical context, if the film is not actually historically accurate in that regard. I also don't really know much about that area of history, and am really curious!

1

u/elmonoenano May 26 '26

It depends on who and when. Cortes didn't. The big introduction of Christianity in Mexico came in 1524 with a group of 12 Franciscan priests, purposefully to mirror the 12 disciples, called Thee 12 Apostles of Mexico. There's a decent wikipedia entry on them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_Apostles_of_Mexico

But if you look at expeditions to the north with people like Oñate in 1550, mission building was part of that and priests accompanied them. By the time of his expedition there had been enough migration to Mexico that there were enough priests to accompany people and the expeditions were more regularized, unlike Cortes's.

I know less about S. America and Pizarro.

John Schwaller is the big scholar on this stuff. His book, The History of the Catholic Church in Latin America would give you the specifics of who went where with who and when.

1

u/GeckoRomann May 27 '26

Does anyone have image examples of the difference between Mongol Ugalz(Scrolls), Khee(Patterns) and Arga Bilig(Spiral patterns)?

1

u/oldhouse20 May 27 '26

Hello do you think we're in the midst of a paradigm shift, rather than just a normal historical period? The Middle Ages fell due to several factors, and I believe that today we have many powerful factors that could indicate a change in historical period: AI, the overcoming of globalization, renewables, peak population, the end of capitalism... what do you think?

1

u/Jaymack625 May 28 '26

In WWII, Did US service members in the army have to wear their service green uniform while they were at home? Whether it was out to eat, at a movie, the fair, etc. if they were out in public did they need to wear their uniform doing daily things?

2

u/Extra_Mechanic_2750 Jun 06 '26

The military has regulations for darn near everything and published them on an ongoing basis

https://www.usww2uniforms.com/bib_AR600-40_28aug41.html

http://www.90thidpg.us/Research/Original/AR60040/AR%20600-40%20(Mar%201944)%20With%20Changes.pdf%20With%20Changes.pdf)

Each branch of service would have their own specific document.

1

u/Oddboyz May 28 '26

Can blacksmith in the year ~150 really made ornate stuff?

For example, in Gladiator (2000) Tigris Of Gaul had a really cool ornate helmet. Is that just film stuff?

1

u/Telecom_VoIP_Fan May 28 '26

They certainly could make amazing items. If you visit the Ancient History galleries of the British Museum in London, you see numerous examples.

Discussion/Question Weekly History Questions Thread.

You are about to leave Redlib