History Thread

History Thread.

Have a degree in history and taking a break before degree in science. Ask me anything about history and i'll do the best i can.

Also, stories from history

Other urls found in this thread:

sourcebooks.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/modsbookfull.asp
history.hanover.edu/texts/magde.html
sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/1187saladin.asp
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

At what point did Sweden descend from their great empire into their modern state of cuckery?

Why did ww1 start

Sweden was officially christianised sometime in the 12th century.

a number of reasons can be pointed to. They are all interrelated and are each a straw that contributed to breaking the camel's back.

Pic related is the catalyst that lead to a series of events that basically threw Europe into war. A Bosnian revolutionary shot the heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary on the 28th of June, 1914 in Sarajevo. The basic cluster-fuckery that followed goes like this.

>Archdule Ferdinand assassinated in Bosnia
>Austria-Hungary annoyed and invades
>Bosnia an ally of Russia, therefore Russia by obligation declares war on Austria-Hungary
>Germany, ally of Austria, by obligation declares war on Russia
>France is ally of Russia, and therefore will also have to declare war
>Russian army is massive, but slow to mobilise
>Germans knowing this, turn their attention to France to knock them out of the war before taking on the Russians.
>French border with Germany is heavily defended due to last war between Germans and French
>Germans go through less-guarded Belgian border
>Belgium has defence treaty with British
>British drawn into the war
>British Empire also drawn into war

Thus the clusterfuck known as World War 1 begins by September 1914.

Plagiarism? Looks better than your trips.

This might be an imposible question to answer
What did the Europeans thought was beyind the Atlantic Sea?
Is there any data from trips to America before Columbus that aren't vikings?

It's the standard timeline used. You can fill books about why WWI started.

For instance, there's a lot of underlying causes that sparked this assassination and subsequent fuckery.

eg:

>The year of revolution 1848 brought about the ideas of self-determination and nationalism into the public eye - the idea that every people group deserves their own homeland and nation state. This lead to the unification of Italy, Germany, and later Greece.

Why study history? Just don't say it repeats itself etc etc.

>history repeats

So do your digita non, check’d

This thread might be better off in

Who was the Fox News of Philadelphia back “in the day?”

It depends on which European people group, but here goes.

>Romans and Greeks believed that the sea beyond the Pillars of Heracles (the straight of Gibraltar) was infinite, and the physical manifestation of Oceanus, the titan.

>The Norse believed that the edges of the world were propped up by four dwarves separating the earth from the sky.......but they also believed there was no land west of Denmark until they raided Lindisfarne in the 8th century CE.

It's difficult to know about what a lot of ancient cultures in Europe thought about the Atlantic ocean, because most of them didn't have a written culture. Most of what we know was written by their enemies, the Romans and Greeks,

Indeed, that way you know what to look for. For instance, there are general trends that repeat, such as the centre of world trade. It has shifted from China, to Europe, to North America, then back to China, and probably in the future to Africa.

What happened when Norway broke out if the union with Sweden?

gotta educate the b-tards somehow. People always complaining there's the same ten threads over and over, and you complain about this? kys.

Fucked if I know, I'm not an American.

My girlfriend is a huge history buff. What are some generally cool facts about American history I could throw at her she might not know?

What are the odds.

I think it's good to know what happened. When it happened. In some ways it's a trail of what happened.

I treat history like I treat my server logs. It's just there. If I need something I can pull it up and it'll help me somehow.

O yeah

In Ohio there were two automobiles in the entire town and they crashed.

Who is responsible for slavery in America?

Don't, I did. Study STEM.

Africans. They happily sold the slaves to the English.

Just how significant was the invention of photography.

Both for the past (i.e. how significant was it to society when it became feasible) and the present (i.e. how has photography affected the course of the last 200ish years)

Norway left the union by plebiscite and proceeded to become the most industrialised nation state in Scandinavia. Natrionalism soared and the country eventually became mostly peaceful and focused on furthering its economy until it was invaded by the Nazis roughly 35 years later.

What was the most significant political fuck-up ever?

>sold the slaves to the English.
>English.
lol

R u trolin me again :)

History is fun in DC of the Washington

Got a really good one for you.

Pic related was Peter the Great, the Tasar of Russia from 1721-1725. Although his reign was short, he was obsessed with modernising and westernising Russia.

Breaking with tradition of the time, he, a European monarch, went on tour around Europe in order to experience western culture first-hand and to bring back with him whatever he could that he thought would be of use.

He most admired the Dutch and their use of land reclamation and anti-flooding measures. He actually toyed with adopting Dutch as the official language of Russia.

Whilst staying in England, he was invited to stay at the country estate of a member of the house of lords. After his visit, the lord in question went home and found shit wiped across the walls and the place generally trashed. Neihbours reported that a bunch of drunk Russians were wheeling each other across the estate in wheelbarrows and threw empty bottles and their own shit at anyone that dare come to see what the commotion was about.

Peter build the city of Saint Petersberg, obsessed with making Russia a naval power, he used Dutch land reclamation techniques to build the city on marshland. He supposedly died trying to save a drowning child and subsequent hypothermia took him. He was succeeded by Catherine the Great.

Fab Trips

Hey... I thought that world war I was predestined with Kaiser Wilhelm dumped Otto Von Bismarck and wrote off all the treaties and diplomacy Bismarck (a one-man League of European Nations) had built up.

I read that Bismarck told Wilhelm, keep up the treaties and maintain stability in Europe or you will lose your crown in 20 years.

20 years later, WW1.

Any validity to this ?

oy vey shut it down, this goy knows too much

I want to hear about power in ancient Rome. Gold rings grills like that. White pimps pimping.

Bond villains and pimps. Go.

Slavery would have first been brought to the Americas in a large scale by the Spanish, as conquistadors rampaged across central America, they would have taken captives as slaves for the crown of Spain.

Large-scale importation of slaves (the Atlantic Slave Trade) was first propagated by the Portuguese and Dutch, and later by the Spanish, French and British as they all set up rival plantation colonies in the Caribbean and North America. The last European nation to outlaw slavery to my recollection was Portugal (don't know the year) but their former colony Brazil continued the practice until the turn of the 20th century.

Germany going away from a Monarchy.

Germans were skeptical about Representative Democracy, and thus you got Hitler.

why was the 30 years war so terrible?

what's with all the trips in this thread ?
Check'd

Bismark did indeed say something to this effect. Bismark was an amazing stateman and firmly believed in keeping a balance of power within Europe. This status quo was known as "The concert of Europe" and maintained continental peace since Napoleon in 1815. It last until 1914, not bad effort.

The Kaiser himself was a paranoid and unstable leader hell-bent on somehow proving himself. Germany was late to the empire game, and they constantly strong-armed other European nations under his leadership, rocking the boat as it were.

Again, there were so many contributing factors to the first world war. "German agression" was what was blamed by the allies.

Why was George Washington appointed the first President of the United States of America?

During the third crusade

Just how pivotal was Saladin? He has been portrayed as a wise, sensible, commander.

What can you tell me.

What was happening in Rusia/easter europe when Rome existed and then eventually fell?

could hitler really benefit off jewish rocket scientists or were the germans actually superior?

People don't stop asking Op and others, but please don't be afraid to look up anwsers youself. Also, don't rely on wiki, even though it does well, for the most part.

Here is a great site that has many sources. Fantastic place for primary documents. There are many places, but you have to find the rest. That is part of the fun of doing history.

sourcebooks.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/modsbookfull.asp

My favorite one would have to be the British embassy mission to Imperial China in 1793.

The British were so mad for tea that it had caused a trade deficit of unimaginable proportions. Tea imports accounted for nearly a quarter of the British fiscal budget in 1791.

Desperate and overly proud, the British sought to trade on equal terms with Qing dynasty China. Only....the thing about China was that you don't "trade" with China, you pay tribute and MAYBE China will let you by their goods at inflated price.

This did not sit will with the British

Come 1793, Lord Earl McArtney was sent by King George III to persuade the Qianlong Emperor to let the British trade on equal terms.

>British arrive in port of Canton--only port Europeans are allowed to trade (in what is now Guandong Province)
>British had brought with them all manner of trinkets and scientific instruments and advances from Europe
>Chinese customs official says thankyou for the truibute, but we don't really need all this barbarian crap you've brought.....but thanks for tribute, we'll send them to the Emperor in the summer palace.
>British tell official that a lot of the "tribute" is very sensitive and delicate, and would rather sail up the coast to Tianjin themselves rather than let it be brought over land where it could break.
>Chinese official agrees.
>British dock in Tianjin and march right up to Qianlong Emperor while he's on holiday in the summer palace.
>Emperor wasn't expecting them, but received them all the same
>"Oh....you've brought tribute....of trinkets.....thanks....i guess....." (I paraphrase)
>The Earl then makeshis appearance and bows before the Emperor as he would to King George III
>Right away, this is a problem
>In Imperial China in the presence of the Emperor, you must Kowtow, which is a ritual act of submission in which the person prostrates themselves so low that their their forehead touches the floor.
>Such a thing is intolerable to the British

Cont.....

>McAtney refused to Kowtow, because of course, he represented the greatest civilisation ever to grace the Earth.
>The Chinese were not impressed. However, being the diplomat, he made a compromise.
>He would kowtow before the Qianlong Emperor if a Chinese official of equal rank were to kowtow before a portrait of King George III
>Such a a think intolerable to the Chinese, because of course, why should they bow before some barbarian king?
>Shit like this plagued the whole mission.
>In the end, The British achieved no trade concessions.
>The Emperor even wrote a letter to King George scolding him as if he were a child offering crusty old sandwiches as tribute. He chastised him as if he were a conquered chieftain.

The British, denied equal trading rights resorted to dirty tactics and instead kickstarted an illegal drug trade in China. The eventual result were the Opium Wars which brought down the last Chinese Imperial Dynasty.


Moral of the story: Don't get between the British and their tea.

What is the real reason Constantine swerved away from Roman Religion, replacing it with Christianity?

Was it for some reason relating to governance, or was it really the pie in the sky story of bargaining with God for a victory, and keeping his side of the bargain ?

I'm dubious... Sensible Emperors do nothing unless it seems to meet their aims pragmatically.

The first election (like most) was rigged from the start. At the time there were two major factors among the first government: the Federalists and the Republicans.

To my understanding, it was John Adams who was intially the favourite to be President among the elite. However, he was unpopular with the common folk, and had some bad blood with some on the federalist side. They conspired against him and made Washington the first president to great fanfare, leaving Adams in a sour mood that he never forgot.

To the federalists, Washington was a guaranteed win, because who else but the commander in chief of the revolution should lead the new nation?

Republicans were of a different mind, as they believed the military and the government should remain completely separate in order to balance one another.

>What is the real reason Constantine swerved away from Roman Religion, replacing it with Christianity?
His mother had converted to Christianity.

when he was a boy, or an adult ?

What about Washington led him to go along with this ? I thought he was reluctant to be Prez

It was what was happening in Eastern Europe that contributed to Rome's fall, actually. The huns, and other Asiatic steppe peoples had finally come westward and brought with them a form of organised warfare that was completely unknown to European tribesmen at the time. Archers on horseback decimated village after village, causing a massive rush of "barbarians" against the Roman frontier all at once.

In the east, the Romans had to directly confront the huns, and eventually came to the understanding that if they just paid them, they'd go away. However, like all raiders, they would eventually keep coming back, so the western portion of the empire eventually fell because various tribal groups that had amassed inside the Roman realm rebelled when the inept Roman government refused to acknowledge their rights as Roman subjects.

A jewish scientist invented gas for use as a weapon in WWI, so you tell me.

What was the prevalence of ethnostates (as opposed to) multicultural states throughout history? As far as I can tell, other than a few short lived empires (and until the 20th century) just about everyone lived in an ethnostate.

Also,
Why did Wilson go from being a non-interventionist to (in my opinion) ruining Western Europe for the next 50 years (as well as Eastern Europe for the next 150)?

Like all big moments in history, this has a lot of conjecture, so I can only give you an approximation.

>he MAY have seen a falling meteorite and taken it as a sign of divine intervention when compaigning against his enemies.

>Christians were in great abundance and fanatical enough to die for their cause willingly, so he took advantage.

>Controling the religion of Rome meant an extra layer of protection to his rule. Christian leaders could validate him in the eyes of his subjects.

How did the Chinese get over the opium wars?

Oh he definitely was very reluctant. However, the old soldier was more duty-bound than unwilling, and the visage of a reluctant leader was very popular at the time.

They didn't. Even today the Chinese refer to this period as the "Century of Humiliation"

They resolved to scrape their way back to the centre of the world by any means necessary. Understand that, and you understand the Chinese mindset today and why the government behaves the way it does.

eg:

>South China Sea
>One Belt One Road
>Taiwan
>Tibet
>Frosty relations with the west

Successful multicultural states were most rare in the early modern period,m believe it or not. With the coming about of nationalism in the 18-19th centuries, enthnoreligious conflicts became more common.

A successful multicultural example would have to be China and its various dynasties. Although the most successful at being culticultural would have to be a toss up between the Yuan and the Qing. Religious and ethnic differences were tolerated so long as everybody paid taxes and homage to the Emperor.

In general, ethnostates tended to be small, but stable, but they got swallowed up by large multicultural states.

Why did half Europe(England, Spain, France)developed monarchies but the other half(Switzerland, Germany, Netherlands[?])didn't

Various reasons lead to US intervention into WWI, but the easy-to-point-to ones are are Central-Powers aggression. In 1917 the German navy started practicing unrestricted warfare in the Meditereannean and Atlantic--basically fire upon any ship that wasn't theirs. The Americans at the time were selling arms and munitions to the allies as well as the Central powers, but the Germans would have no advantage given to the enemy. To top this off, the Germans sunk a passenger ship (The RMS Lisutania, which carried over 100 American civilians).
The Kaiser knew this would eventually bring the Americans into the war, and sought ti pre-emptively occupy them by forging an alliance with Mexico to keep American troops out of Europe. However, this fell through and the Americans were not pleased.

how do you feel about cicero?

Are you looking forward to a lifetime of student debt and the crippling depression associated with the rejection from all but the most mundane jobs stemming from being over educated and inexperienced?

What were the main causes of the first world war?
Don’t say franz ferdinand

The thing about Monarchy in Europe is that they are often found in countries who's lineage is very very old. The French monarchy was probably the oldest. The Spanish crown was the result of the kingdom of Aragon swallowing up the rest of the Iberian Peninsula in the Reconquista. The English crown was fought over a lot, and once won, it stayed.

Divine right and all that crap, basically. However once the reformation started, having a king blessed by the pope was no-longer the only way to start a country. Countries like Holland, Switzerland, and Malta were formed through military alliances that were powerful enough to keep them independent.

After becoming independent, the Dutch became powerful creditors.

The Swiss became powerful mercenaries (and later creditors)

Malta was eventually swallowed by the Ottoman Empire (i think)

The prevailing idea right up until the modern period was that a nation could not be large and be a republic, as a large unwieldy country needed a strong centralised government.

Germany was a special case. It at one time DID have a kingdom. One of the gransdons of Charlemagne was the king of an early German country. However, it was lacking infrastructure and quickly fell into infighting and was constantly invaded by neighboring countries. It was just a bad place to be strategically, caught between large powerful countries. Eventually the centre of Europe became a loosely associated "empire" known as the Holy Roman Empire. This was dissolved when Napoleon invaded.
Germany went through several stages of loos collections of small states until Bismark dissolved the various petty kingdoms into the German Empire, lead by the former strongest German state: Prussia.

Not at all, returning to study science and be employable.

I've answered this a few times other than Ferdinand.

As a historical figure, brilliant. Without him, we wouldn't have our current knowledge of the Latin Language. He often critiqued grammar as well as give accounts of the goings' on.

As a man, he was just as biased as any source.

After reading so many answers...why has Gernany been so bullied over and over?

That's actually something I never got to cover. I will have to go research this period a little more.

Thanks for showing me a gap, I'm looking forward to filling it.

Hope you are able to find work. Most people with science degrees are now earning no more than burger flippers...

A combination of being caught in the middle of bigger countries (Austrian Empire, French Empire, Russia, etc) and being late to the game as a result.

Committing genocide also probably had something to do with it.


Before world war one, though, there was a general discomfort about Germany, beause it was rapidly becoming to most industrialised and the most militaristic nation that wasn't entangled in other affairs. Sure, the British had their huge navy, but the Germans were rapidly catching up.

Planning on combining the two and going into Archaeology and working for a university. Research was always my dream. Don't care if I don't get paid much for it, I just want to advance human knowledge.

Did the holocaust happen?

Best of luck guy.

The 30 Years' War was something I never got to study. I'll have to do that now. From what I can remember, though, was that it involved trying to utterly destroy the Hapsburgs and unrestricted warfare against civilians.

Thanks :)

Yes.

how would the world be different if boudica defeated the ancient roman invaders?

Not very different, I'd imagine. At the time Caludius was pretty keen on conquering Britannia. If the first wave was defeated, a much larger invasion force would have been sent. It could have lead to the eventual conquering of Caledonia (Scotland) too. Resources were being allocated depending on urgency/need.

Who was (in respect to your studies) the greatest general/strategist of the ancient world?

Ah, that one remains a toss up between Alexander and Caesar. Both brilliant in their campaigns, but both killed by their lack of vision.

It was really kinda of like a world war. Lots of back stabbing. Religious strife caused things to be personal. Also, there was a lot that happened on either side of the war. So it is not an easy anwser, but warfare at the time was revolutionised by weapons and tactics, which was similar to what happened during World War One. Killing was easier and medicine was really not up to couping with the slaughter. One reason it was so bad was because Spain fielded mercenary armies that did not like resistance. They took out their stress on conquered foes, and Spain always kinda had a reputation throughout history as being ruthless. The reasons why was because armies also lived off the land in those days, so they forceably took what they needed. Additionally, plunder was one way in which to pay off an army. You cannot get a good answer on here to you epic question, but I tried my best.

Here is some read in read in you history.hanover.edu/texts/magde.html

He was pretty big. Though the Muslims faired pretty well before him. So he was not the only b/a muslim. He was wealthy, which aided the cause. He brought Muslim together, stabilized the situation after some setbacks, and gave the crusaders a good licking.

Some reading for you sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/1187saladin.asp

He also made mistakes like many people. Various communication blunders, over extended and exhausted his armies. Even he got tricked fairly often. Overall what you heard was correct.

This is me. I am not. Please kill me. But I have shit ton of job experience.

Thanks, other history-user :)

Hannibal and Napoleon don't rank in this discussion?

Hannibal whilst brilliant imo wasn't as good as Caesar or Alexander

And Napoleon was modern, not ancient.

Will we see a new super power eclipse America in our lifetime? If so, who?

Fair, sorry for including Napoleon I'm a little drunk. How do you feel about him as a general, though?

How Exactly Did America do it's banking during the times of Abraham Lincoln and the greenback?

bump for this question

Very probably. If the USA is not eclipsed, it will at least be vehemently challenged.

I make the argument that the mid-late 21st and into the 22nd century will see no less than five superpowers. If history has shown us anything in geopolitics, it's that as one power becomes hegemonic, other will eventually follow and meet to challenge it. This will lead to a balancing act as peace is maintained through a thin veil of diplomacy.

By the year 2075 i believe the world powers will be as follows:

>The USA
>The People's Republic of China (if their economy doesn't collapse)
>Russia (propped up by an uineasy alliance with India and China)
>India (with Pakistan as designated shitting spot)
>European Union (assuming reforms go well)
>African Union (Assuming the infrastructure projects and diplomatic reforms go well)

Fiscal policy wasn't something I got to take a look at during my studies of 19th century USA. I'll have to come back to that.

I think you mean Serbia OP (balkan hatred intensifies)

as a general, he was a bona fide genius. As a statement, I'm a little torn. He had some practical ideas on paper, but horribly destructive in practice.

couldn't agree more user. beats the usual trap claptrap

Whoops, right you are.

>Africa
>Unified
Pick one, they're more likely to kill off half the population through genocide than band together

Yeah, and i guess south America will be renamed Proxy Centauri. Nice prognosticating there, Skeeter.

>India with Pakistan as designated shitting spot

What are your favorite time periods and where (not counting here & now).

I assume you won't be able to decide on a single #1 favorite.