r/AskHistorians

As far as I understand, when the Western Roman Empire collapsed, a lot of the achievements of Rome were forgotten. Roads were no longer maintained, culture collapsed, completely new and less sophisticated political structures emerged. And for 1000 years, Europe fell behind.

I ask myself: If there were still capable engineers, administrators etc. around, why did not small pockets of roman societies survive? Even if the capitol was gone and central structures disappeared, when I assume that roman societies were highly functional and working better than other societies at that point, why did they not form armies and create Rome-like smaller countries, that survived the centuries?

Were they disadvantaged e.g. militarily compared to the germanic peoples? Or could roman administration only work for larger countries, and smaller countries were more efficient when they had simple monarchies and tribe-like structures? Or was it like the collapse of the bronze age, that supply routes collapsed, and roman administrators were inefficient without paper? Or did everything happen just so fast that they could not adapt in time?

I’m used to this situation being presented as, “Well, of course they pulled the trigger. If not, they would have just been shot, too.”

But is that accurate?

Both Indonesia and Malaysia were once Hindu-Buddhist nations, and were part of the most powerful maritime empire of the 9th and 10th centuries C.E, the Srivijayan Empire. Both nations adopted lots of Indic influences such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Writing Systems (derived from Southern Indian Scripts), Sanskrit loanwords, fashion, customs, traditions, etc.

But after conversion to Islam during the 13th until the 16th centuries, the two nations diverged from one another when it comes to cultural preservation. Both converted to Islam, but Malaysia was thoroughly Arabicized, while Indonesian retained a lot of Indigenous elements underneath a surface veneer of Islam. Indonesians rarely adopted Arabic culture, customs and traditions, unlike Malaysia. It's very common for Malays to have full Arabic names after conversion: Muhammad Ibrahim for example, while its common for Indonesians to keep Indigenous Sanskritized names: Dewa Hartono for example.

The Indonesians not only kept Indigenous and Sanskrit names, but also art, dance, customs, rituals, temples, etc. while every bit of Pre-Islamic History of the Malays were either forgotten or erased.

What could be the reason for this divergence? Why did the Malays erased most of their Pre-Islamic culture and heritage, but Indonesians kept it, despite the adaptation of Islam?

Thanks to whoever can provide a valuable insight.

For those who are unfamiliar, link rot refers to the tendency of hyperlinks to eventually stop working - either because the page has been moved or taken down.

This question came to my mind after looking through some older questions/responses and finding that a lot of the links no longer worked; these links were to a variety of website types, it wasn’t just a non-academic vs academic resource issue. In your experience as moderators/users, is this a big problem or did I just get unlucky with the posts I was looking at?

Regardless of whether or not it’s a widespread issue, I do think that it may be worth addressing to help ensure longevity of responses. While I don’t know how feasible it is, I would suggest either requiring answers to use links from web archives or have a bot that automatically converts typical links into links that point to a web archive then replies.

Edit: for example, here is one of the responses that I was looking at https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/s/KfIR5wjZZp . While most of the links work, some of them just don’t lead anywhere.

During WWII, smoking was extremely widespread among soldiers, and cigarettes were included in military rations or distributed to troops.
Soldiers could smoke very heavily, and cigarettes at the time generally lacked the filters commonly found on modern cigarettes.

Has there ever been historical or medical research specifically examining the impact this level of smoking had on the physical performance of WWII soldiers?

When did the popularity of standing up to shower overtake sitting down to bathe? I’m curious in general, but for the sake of simplification let’s just say in the United States.

Like most socio-technological changes in the mid 20th century I’m assuming it had something to do with WWII, but where exactly was the tipping point when most average people, on an average workday, cleaned up via a shower instead of a bath?

When did they get universally popular enough that every standard domestic bathroom had to have a shower head, not just a tub and faucet?

The impression I have is that communal and private showers were used by soldiers, athletes and prisoners decades before they were popular for daily use by the general public, but when was the tipping point between “You can buy a shower for your home if you would like one” and “All houses and apartments come with a shower as the bare minimum?” My gut instinct is sometime between 1960-1970. Am I correct?

There's a famous Peep Show sketch where two Nazis reflect that perhaps they are the bad guys. I expect many higher ranking members would know what it was all about from the get-go, but are there (m)any archival or interview sources of such realisations?

The question is inspired by an article I read about a man whose father was a Gestapo interrogator and even on his deathbed said to his family "I would do it all again."

I have been reading about how Christopher Columbus and people at his time considered that slaves are commodities. Did the Greeks and Romans see it the same way?

I got interesting in this after watching episode 7 of Vinland Saga, which shows the Viking group move its ships over land in order to attack a Frankish fortress, defended by Thorkell (who I later learned was a real historical figure).
This made me more interested in how much of the warfare and military tactics shown in the series reflects actual Viking practices.

I looked into this myself, but I found some differences between the sources and explanations, so I thought asking here might help me.

So, how practical would this actually have been with Viking warships, and were their ships intentionally built for this use?
Was ship-portage mainly used for transportation, or was it also genuinely used as a military tactic?
And finally are there historical examples of it being used specifically for an attack rather than simply for transport, especially around the period and campaigns represented in Vinland Saga, even if the anime obviously exaggerates how easily it could be done?

Thanks in advance to anyone who takes the time to answer 🙏

I guess this is more a question about the field of historiology itself.
It's my understanding that professional historians are heavily specialized in one region + era, and that their most of their research are heavily focused on this topic.
In that case, does the opinion of historian on a topic they're not specialized about weighs more than that of an amateur history enthusiast? Should I consider that a historian is naturally more informed about their history-related answers in topics not their speciality, or should I take it with the same grain of salt of a non historian in this case?

Asking the question, because I was once chatting with a guy who said he was a historian specialized in Modern Greece. But while talking about Ancient Greece, he had claims that seemed to be opposite to the historians' consensus on the topic (afaik). And thus I wondered how seriously I could take his claims, being aware that he also had political biases that could influence his view.

As we all likely know, Hitler was appointed chancellor by President Paul Von Hinderburg on 30th of January 1933, And Hitler used that power to pass major things like the Reichstag Fire Decree, The Enabling Act, Law Against Formation of Parties and Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service.

However- What I and many other forget was Paul Von Hinderburg, Although as far as I’m aware he was basically a figurehead and was in ill health by that point, Did not pass away until 2nd of August 1934. This means there was a (roughly) 549 days between Hitler being appointed chancellor and Hinderburg passing away. After Hinderburg’s death, A (rigged) referendum was held by the Nazis to merge the title of President (as Hitler assumed it upon Hinderburg’s death) and Chancellor into Fürher.

Everything else afterwards is quite well known. But- Although I’m aware he was already likely a figurehead and in extremely ill health by that point- Did Hinderburg do anything major (aside from the fire decree)? Was he still involved in German politics? What was his opinion on things like the enabling act? Was he still widely recognised as Germany’s head of state or was it known even then he was becoming a figurehead? How public was he still?

I know you all probably get a lot of questions about WW2 and Hitler, But this has been bugging me for a while. Thanks in advance.

Hi,

I'm wondering how Native American boarding schools were perceived at the time? Were they the more egalitarian viewpoint, how did locals think about boarding schools being placed in their community, and how were the locations of the schools chosen to begin with?

Or in other words, was there process to actually track the dead in places that had been bombarded by artillery?

I was thinking yesterday about a deck of “Happy Family” cards I had as a little boy. It’s a very simple game similar to “Go Fish” but played with special cards showing four members of a family, with each family comprising:

Mister Name, the Profession
Mrs Name, the Profession’s Wife
Master Name, the Profession’s Son
Miss Name, the Profession’s Daughter

As a boy, I found it very confusing that a child of the family was called “Master”. And I’m wondering now the process by which this nomenclature emerged.

Of course, “Mr” was itself originally a form of “Master” or “Meister” — but some form of that usage exists in most European languages and I believe began before modern English was a thing.

But getting back from “mister” to “master” and then applying it to the son rather than the father is a puzzle to me.

As an adult I’ve seen the play “Master Harold and the Boys” which gives the usage strong racial and class connotations in the context of South African Apartheid — in that play, the “Boys” are adult black men and “Master Harold” is what they must call their employer’s teenage son.

Are those connotations basic to the usage? Or did it originate simply as a joking compliment, as when a little boy is called “big guy”? How innocent or entangled in oppression is this term?

And, more simply, how old is it?

(My first question here, please bear with me if I don't yet know all the rules.)

As far as I read only commissioned officers were allowed to take command of a ship or "fight it", i.e. take tactical decisions in battle (engaging, disengaging, striking of colours, ...). This would happen in order of commissioned rank, should the captain / first lieutenant / .... die.

So this leaves me wondering, what would have happened in the unfortunate circumstance of a ship losing all of its commissioned officers - i.e. the captain/commander and all of the lieutenants - in battle, being left behind with only warrant and petty officers.

Would the command be taken up by a lowly midshipman in a masters mate rank? Would the (sailing) master take over, through sheer overwhelming expertise? Was this even regulated by the royal navy, or was this a legally ambiguous situation?

Are there documented cases of this ever happening in the royal navy?

The film Master and Commander is highly praised for its historical accuracy, so I wish to know if the doctor had any official rank aboard a Royal Navy ship.

As I understand it, having a doctor like him aboard wasn't common, right? Usually there was just a surgeon who specialized in amputations, so in the film everyone is really proud of the fact that they have a doctor on board.

But if there were doctors on board ships during the Napoleonic wars, were they officers or just highly respected civilians?

AFAIK, both (at least south Indian kingdoms like the Chola Empire) had vast seafaring societies that participated in and protected trade in and around their regions. How come then neither looked for more places to trade with/find alternative trade routes like Europe had done during the Age of the Exploration?

Did they just deal with having a bad smell until they died? Still reproduced and had more horrible symptoms while pregnant or if they had their menstrual cycle?

I've fallen down a Trojan War rabbit hole recently(Thanks Nolan) and I've realized I don't actually understand what we mean when we talk about the "canon" version of this story. Most people, myself included until recently, have this vague idea that the Trojan War story we all know basically comes from Homer. But the more I read, the more obvious it becomes that it really doesn't.

The Iliad covers a tiny period near the end of the war. It doesn't give us the Judgment of Paris as the complete story we usually know, the sacrifice of Iphigenia, Achilles at Skyros, the Trojan Horse, the actual fall of Troy, Achilles' famous invulnerable heel, and plenty of other things that most people would consider basic Trojan War lore. Yet somehow all of these traditions have merged in popular culture into one enormous narrative that we casually associate with Homer.

What confuses me even more is how selective this process seems to have been. Take the Mysian campaign. In the wider Epic Cycle, before the Greeks successfully reach Troy, they launch an earlier expedition and land in Mysia, apparently mistaking it for Trojan territory. They fight Telephus, Achilles wounds him, the Greeks are scattered and eventually return home. According to the later mythographic chronology, eight years then pass before they assemble again. Telephus eventually comes to Greece because his wound cannot heal, Achilles heals him, and Telephus helps the Greeks find their way to Troy.

That's not exactly a minor deleted scene. The Greeks literally invade the wrong country before invading Troy. And yet almost nobody who casually knows the Trojan War seems to know this happened. This creates many plot holes as it makes everyone 8+ years older.

Meanwhile, basically everyone knows that Achilles was invulnerable because Thetis dipped him in the Styx while holding him by the heel. Except that isn't Homer either. As far as I understand it, that specific version of Achilles' invulnerability is extremely late compared with Homer and is associated with sources such as Statius, writing in the 1st century AD! While the Mysian campaign is likely 50-100 years after homer ,part of the Epic cycle.

And that's where I start getting confused about what we actually mean by "canon." How has something written something like seven or eight centuries after the traditional dating of Homer become so culturally dominant that Achilles' heel is probably one of the most famous details in all of Greek mythology, while an entire failed Greek expedition preserved as part of the archaic Trojan tradition has basically disappeared?

Mysia is only one example. The more you reconstruct the Trojan War we think we know, the stranger the source list becomes. You have Homer, then the lost poems of the Epic Cycle such as the Cypria, Aethiopis, Little Iliad, Sack of Ilium, Nostoi and Telegony. Then you have lyric poets and other archaic traditions, followed by Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides, who sometimes preserve older material and sometimes give us radically different versions. Then come mythographers trying to organize all of it, later Greek writers, and Roman authors such as Virgil, Ovid and Statius. Somehow pieces from all of these periods have been thrown together and produced what we now think of as the "standard Trojan War."

This also creates some hilarious problems if you try to treat everything as one internally consistent fictional universe. For example, if you incorporate the Mysian expedition and the eight-year interval into the same chronology as Homer's Odyssey, suddenly the clean 10 years at Troy + 10 years wandering = Odysseus was gone for 20 years becomes much more complicated. You start wondering whether Odysseus was involved in Trojan-related expeditions for something closer to 28 years, what exactly happened during the interval, when Telemachus was conceived, how old everyone should be, and so on.

Which leads to the question I'm actually interested in: did the ancient Greeks themselves have anything resembling a canonical Trojan War timeline? If someone in 5th-century Athens heard "the Trojan War," was there a broadly understood sequence of events that almost everyone accepted, with poets and playwrights merely choosing which parts to dramatize? Or could two Greeks genuinely know substantially different versions of what happened and consider both legitimate?

And then there is the even stranger question of when this process actually stops. Statius is writing about Achilles around the first century AD, many centuries after Homer, and material from that later tradition can apparently become part of what a modern person considers basic Achilles lore. So when does the Trojan mythological universe close? Does it ever?

Could a writer in the 3rd century AD introduce a new episode about Achilles and, if that story became influential enough, would we now call that "Greek mythology"? What about the 5th century AD? The Byzantine period? The Middle Ages? At what point do scholars stop calling something "a variant of the Achilles myth" and start calling it later reception, adaptation or essentially fan fiction using Achilles as a character?

This is especially confusing because our modern pseudo-canon seems incredibly selective. Statius' Achilles heel gets in, Euripides' Helen living in Egypt mostly doesn't, the Mysian campaign mostly doesn't, the sacrifice of Iphigenia absolutely does, the Trojan Horse obviously does, and Homer's name somehow gets retroactively attached to the whole package.

So I'm starting to think there are really three different things that we casually collapse into one. There is the Homeric version, meaning what the Iliad and Odyssey actually say. Then there is the enormous ancient Trojan mythological tradition, including the Epic Cycle, archaic poetry, tragedy, mythographers, local traditions, Hellenistic literature and Roman retellings. And finally there is the modern "Trojan War canon," which seems to be a greatest-hits compilation assembled from whichever versions happened to become culturally dominant.

And that final category is what fascinates me. Where did this pseudo-canon actually come from? Was there a particular ancient synthesis, mythographer or later educational tradition that had an outsized influence on the story we inherited? Or is our "standard Trojan War" genuinely just the result of 2,500+ years of cultural selection, Roman literature, medieval transmission, Renaissance classicism and modern adaptations gradually deciding which pieces were memorable enough to survive?

Thank you all for your time reading this