r/AskHistory

Can anybody analyze how a major historical turning point, event, or social shift was influenced by underlying economic, ideological, or political factors. In your response, evaluate the validity of the statement: '[Insert a commonly held belief or controversial statement about the event here]'. You must support your argument using at least two primary sources and three peer-reviewed secondary sources, paying specific attention to how marginalized or dissenting voices experienced this period.

Hi

The discourse around the USA reaching a milestone has caused me to look at this list

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_modern_sovereign_states_by_date_of_formation

And im confused. 1801 certainly is a key date for the UK, but so is 1706. So is 1066 for that matter. And 1922. I cant really find a reason 1801 is the listed date that also makes sense with Germany being 1867 instead of 1991.

Any help greatly appreciated.

When you watch the videos of AA over London, etc., some of that must have fallen down and struck people? Or was it generally at an angle where it would not land within the city? Was this a big concern or was this seen as a given based on "metal in sky, fall on head, what can we do?"

We all know that cricket became massive in India and South Asia generally, presumably a gift from British colonisation. I would think football was also big in Britain at that time as well, and yet South Asia seems to be the part of the world least interested in football. Why is that? Why did cricket become popular while football seemed to make almost no impression?

As a reader deeply interested and passionate about European history from east to west, I've always been fascinated by the sheer number of wars, and belligerent nations that existed in Europe, especially over the past few centuries. Although I have my own opinions on almost everything related to history, I'd really like to know Europeans' views on who they consider the fiercest and most complete military ethnicity from a historical-military perspective.

I was looking at the subdivision of the Austrian Empire b/w 1816-1867 and Transylvania, Vojvodina and Croatia aren't part of Kingdom of Hungary.

There is Grand Principality of Transylvania, Voivodeship of Serbia and Banat of Temeschwar and Kingdom of Croatia and Slavonia.

I guess the Kingdom of Croatia and Slavonia still remain autonomous but why did Austria just give Transylvania and Vojvodina to Hungary instead of keeping it during compromise to have as much power as possible.

this part of the world in history always fascinated me and i've heard some interesting things and seen some cool visual pictures of some of the buildings or cities they allegedly built

compared to the rest of the world at the time?

My answer is when Soviet officer Stanislav Petrov prevented an all out nuclear disaster in 1983, making the decision to not launch a retaliatory nuclear strike on the United States when the Soviet missile detection system malfunctioned, giving the incorrect signal that a nuclear strike was inbound. His decision to veto the other officer's impulsive decisions likely saved not only millions in the United States but also in the Soviet Union. If nuclear missiles were launched at the U.S. at the time it's possible a full on nuclear exchange could've occured.

Edit: Turns out the Petrov story is false, or at least overblown/glorified here's u/joey-jo_jo-jr 's comment for context:

"The system was relatively new and known for throwing up false warnings, a similar issue had happened a few months earlier, therefore everyone knew that the supposed US launch was likely a system error. Petrov flagged it as such and his CO came down and confirmed this. Even if Petrov had flagged it as a genuine launch his CO would have flagged it as a system error. The duty officer at Soviet air defence in Moscow also called them and told them that their system was the only one showing a supposed US launch, no one else could confirm it.

Regardless the Soviets would not have launched a retalitory strike until they had visual satellite confirmation of a US launch, i.e. they could literally see missiles heading towards them"

I am currently reading through Acemoglu and Robinson's book "Why Nations Fail" and on page 231, on the subject of the repression of industrialisation across several countries, they state the following on the Song dynasty:

"For centuries China also had a centralised state with a meritocratically recruited civil service."

My question is on the accuracy of this claim. There are two pillars to this, how centralised were the Song and how meritocratic was their civil service?

Like back when every "human" was nomadic and like there were no villages or anything, did language exist? Like if it was just people and their families traveling around with no towns or anything, did like every family have their own language? If language didn't exist, how did people traveling together communicate with each other?

I am curious in how democracies before the 21st century handled any situations where losing parties and/or leaders, whether they were incumbent or non incumbent, refused to accept electoral defeat.

What do historians say about how losers’ consent functioned in earlier democracies and what happened in cases where it broke down?

I previously published this question in this subreddit, and I'm really excited by all the answers! I'm planning video series to teach people about American history.

This is planned on the personal basis that a lot of people (even Americans!! I'm guilty of not recalling fun facts or even crucial details of some of our nation's founding..) don't know facts about the revolution, our rights, the Constitution or Declaration of Independence, presidential myths, laws, etcetera.

I believe that politics and history is important and I want to be part of a positive impact on younger generations that use social media - and present information in a nonabrasive and nonpartisan way.

I hope that someone out there has some ideas to help me along. I'm going to start with the above topics and see how goes. I will keep everyone posted - I have been doing social media since I was homeschooled in like, elementary school - and I've only ever used this skill to market startups and companies that needed my help with their product. It's time to direct my energy somewhere more impactful. I hope this Reddit post is received with the utmost respect and kindness to everyone!!

I was just putting sugar in my coffee. In my cupboard I have a giant clear jar of white sugar. It’s about the size of a football. I thought about if I time travelled hundreds (thousands?) of years back, which era woulda this be the most valuable. Random question hope this is the right place for it! For some reason r/askhistorians wont let me ask.

EDIT: thanks for the great replies. Just to be clear, not looking to get rich - asking where it would give the best advantage in general. So ya, where’s it’s valuable. But not where I just find its highest price and sell.

What are some extremely valuable (monetary, culturally, etc.) historical objects that have been verified as real but are still lost or missing? For example, the theft of the jewelry from the Louvre or the Amber Room.

I just watched the ninth episode of Band of Brothers and a huge element is the question of whether the local Germans knew what was happening. Nazism was clearly a wide movement and it’s disdain for their hated groups wasn’t subtle.

I am very interested in how Germany rehabilitated itself and dealt with the shame of their horrors. Bonus points on if there’s a book that discusses the parallels of the actions taken after WW2 Germany and The American Civil War South.

If you ask me, he was practically a saint, at least for his time. Not only was he one of the foremost abolitionists of the pre-CW time, but he personally freed eleven enslaved people. He was a true force to be reckoned with! And if you ask me, he was a martyr too, having been executed for his cause of ending slavery. If you've never heard the song "John Brown's Body", be prepared to have a box of tissues. It is very rare for me to cry for any musical piece, but it literally takes everything in me to fight back tears when listening to that song. Perhaps because I can see some parallels to the current time. The melody of John Brown's Body was later used, more famously, as the Battle Hymn of the Republic/Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory.

I'm a history nerd, but I've never heard of Vlad impaling his subjects, until a few days ago. I know that he impaled the boyars that weren't loyal to him (which was basicaly what every voievode did), but not that he impaled day to day peasants. For me it sounds more like those fake german stories meant to vilify him and which were written decades after his death. Do we have contemporany sources or even any greek, russian, ottoman, italian or internal sources to state that he impaled his subjects (outside of boyars)?

The wording of my question might be a bit confusing. Let me provide two examples.

George Washington was a slave owning southerner, but his political views were more in line with those of northern federalists. This helped him to unite the people of the 13 colonies and early republic, and facilitate the enactment of the Constitution.

Josip Tito was raised as a Roman Catholic Croat and identified as such, although his mother was Slovenian. However, during WW2, he fought alongside Serbs against the Axis powers, while many Croats sided with the Germans. This gave him credibility with both of these rival ethnic groups, enabling him to rule over the country and keep ethnic tensions under control.

Are there other examples of this?

Personally, the American Revolution is just as riveting for me. The fact that a ragtag group of colonies, outnumbered and outgunned, took on the world’s greatest empire AND WON still blows my mind.

It wasn’t just muskets and battles. It was radical ideas: self-governance, individual rights, rejecting arbitrary hierarchies. Enlightenment thinkers, daring risk-takers, and ordinary people who decided they wouldn’t bow anymore. The sheer audacity, the debates in taverns and congresses, the fragile alliances, and how it reshaped the modern world... I could read about it forever. David McCullough's book 1776 also really intrigued me though I really want more detail as to before the Revolution, and the 6 years that followed before we could actually agree on something with Parliament.

For a lot of royalty in many families, the children had arranged marriages with 1st or 2nd cousins to keep the power within 1 family. It also helped do things like make alliances.

Were there any famous historical members of royal families that rejected matches and married someone unrelated for love?

I specify historical because I know there’s recent marriages like Prince William marrying Kate for love.
I know there’s Nicholas and Alexandra. They both rejected other matches in favor of romantic marriage with each other. Nicholas’ family hated Alexandra. But those 2 were still 2nd cousins.
I’ll be honest though, I’m pretty sure the reason most people my age know about that marriage is due to the Wii game “Just Dance” having the “Rasputin” song on it.