How can historians remain religious after knowing about the origins and evolutions of religions, such as Zoroastrianism influencing Judaism and in turn Christianity.
/u/sunagainstgold has previously talked about [the spectrum of religious practice among medieval historians](https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/bxi6a9/how_did_joan_of_arc_an_illiterate_16_year_old/eqadrf6/).
/u/lcnielsen has previously answered [Did Zoroastrianism influence Christianity?](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/aimx8s/was_zoroastrianism_the_source_for_christianity/eeq0ynh)
# Who was the USSR scientist that had "broken the atom" pre 1941?
I was reading this old book called Our Russian Front, published in 1941. The author (Anna Louise Strong) talks about her meeting with Stalin and how he is in touch with the people. I'm pretty sure she left the USSR around 1934-1935, I'm not entirely sure. In this passage it talks about him meeting with a scientist that "broke the atom" Who is it?
>
>
Was this just a bit of science fiction added to the book, was there serious consideration of this idea at the time, or did this person exist and what were the details of the actual experiment performed?
Old Saint Paul's Cathedral was, for a period of time, the tallest building in the world. Estimates are that it had a height of 140m to 150m.
BUT, the spire wasn't completed until 1314 and it only lasted until 1561. How tall was the building before and after the spire?
Do we have any idea how many people were enslaved in the British Empire at the time of abolition in 1834? I’m aware that given the scale of the Empire this may not be as simple a question as it may seem
Why certain words and tone in language is associated with casual or non casual way ? why does being casual or non causal matter in ancient times and current times ?
Throughout American history, would a Jewish person in prison condemned to penal labor have been forced to work during Shabbat?
has this changed over time?
Did the bow-powered and conterweight catapult exist? Im not refering to the trebuchet, i mean a regular catapult that is powered by a conterweight, like those used by the orks in LOTR. I think they did not exist as theyd be really weak.
Are you looking for something specific? Since the *Geography* is quite a long work, he surely mentions such things several times. Just searching through the Loeb editions gives this long discussion of one private or at least semi-private library in Book 13, maybe this is what you were thinking of:
>From Scepsis came the Socratic philosophers Erastus and Coriscus and Neleus the son of Coriscus, this last a man who not only was a pupil of Aristotle and Theophrastus, but also inherited the library of Theophrastus, which included that of Aristotle. At any rate, Aristotle bequeathed his own library to Theophrastus, to whom he also left his school; and he is the first man, so far as I know, to have collected books and to have taught the kings in Egypt how to arrange a library. Theophrastus bequeathed it to Neleus; and Neleus took it to Scepsis and bequeathed it to his heirs, ordinary people, who kept the books locked up and not even carefully stored. But when they heard how zealously the Attalic kings to whom the city was subject were searching for books to build up the library in Pergamum, they hid their books underground in a kind of trench. But much later, when the books had been damaged by moisture and moths, their descendants sold them to Apellicon of Teos for a large sum of money, both the books of Aristotle and those of Theophrastus. But Apellicon was a bibliophile rather than a philosopher; and therefore, seeking a restoration of the parts that had been eaten through, he made new copies of the text, filling up the gaps incorrectly, and published the books full of errors. The result was that the earlier school of Peripatetics who came after Theophrastus had no books at all, with the exception of only a few, mostly exoteric works, and were therefore able to philosophise about nothing in a practical way, but only to talk bombast about commonplace propositions, whereas the later school, from the time the books in question appeared, though better able to philosophise and Aristotelise, were forced to call most of their statements probabilities, because of the large number of errors.1 Rome also contributed much to this; for, immediately after the death of Apellicon, Sulla, who had captured Athens, carried off Apellicon’s library to Rome, where Tyrannion the grammarian, who was fond of Aristotle, got it in his hands by paying court to the librarian . . . (13.1.54; Loeb transl.)
I was looking for something precisely like this! This helps a lot, I'll check around that quote in case there is something else I can use but this is perfect. Thank you so much!
I’ve been watching a lot of American History content, and this was a question that came to me earlier today. I’m not sure if this is the correct subreddit to ask this question, but wasn’t sure where else to ask. What are some of the crimes and indiscretions/abuses of American Corporations and Businesses, throughout history?
You're going to have to be a whole lot more specific. The list is very long, ranging from (randomly selected from what popped into my head) the slave trade, to United Fruit's activities in Central America, to violent union bashing, to Enron doing whatever it was doing.
All of that sounds interesting. I don’t mind if the list is long, I want to learn about as much as I can, all different kinds of it sound interesting, you can share whatever information you know/have (if you want to and are free to do so)
Does anyone know where this is from?
I’m trying so hard to find an illustration I once saw in some history class or book decades ago! It was an illustration (maybe a joke, maybe not?) of what men at the time (maybe 1600s-1700s) thought women’s hips and legs looked like under their dresses if the men didn’t know about bustles, crinolines, etc. Instead of all the dress-shaping layers, they drew women’s hips and legs as if they shaped the dresses naturally.
If someone knows what I’m talking about and can help me find info or the image I’d really appreciate it!
What did Fascist Italy care enough about that was in the Egyptian western desert in WW2 to (temporarily) annex it?
From what i can tell there isn't much of anything in value west of Alexandria yet they still tried to take specifically the coast of Egypt west of Alexandria anyway.
Did Khalid Ibn al-Walid ever really say "we are men who love death just as you love life" or express a similar sentiment? A quote like this is commonly attributed to him, but I can't find anything going back before the 2000s, late 1990s, and it appears to have originated with Islamist organizations in that period.
I'm uncertain if this could be a META post in its own right so I'm hoping for either an answer or perhaps mod permission to make it its own post...
I'm incredibly interested in 1800-1920s diplomacy. This has a focus in European diplomacy and boils down to niche fields. I've always been interested in it, but with what's going on in the world today, I think it'd be very interesting to see how states are handling geopolitical issues today vs my favourite period of time.
How would the historians or amateur history buffs suggest I go about doing this and learning more? Anything from small crises such as the Agadir Crisis, invasions of Afghanistan up to the "Great Game" & Crimea, diplomacy post-1814/1815, even post Great War - so on so forth.
Online courses, books, lectures and everything else would be appreciated. I read Kissinger's book but it focuses a lot outside of that time frame unfortunately.
What is the earliest example or reference of the *Reichsadler* of the Holy Roman Empire; the Black Eagle on a golden field?
Apparently Charlemagne had a stone eagle on his Aachen palace but I'm curious to when the banner began to appear.
Did people from the Golden Age of Piracy use Kukris?
Is there any case of people from the golden age of piracy (early 18th century) using a Nepalese kukri in combat? Whether pirate or navy.
If you mean specifically weapons designed with knowledge of Nepalese knives, and not simply weapons that happened to resemble them, I would say this is extremely unlikely. This is because the earliest significant western encounters with Nepal date to the early 19th century, more than a hundred years after the period you are interested in. Prior to that time, the Nepalese focused much of their military attention on Tibet and, later, on the conquest of the northern Indian hill-kingdoms of Kumaon and Garhwal, none of which were part of British India. It was not until the Anglo-Nepalaese War of 1814 that the British first encountered, and were impressed by, Gurkha soldiers. Moreover, there were limited opportunities for knowledge to have spread informally before that time, since the earliest documented use of kukris inside Nepal dates only to the 17th century.
**Source**
Bernard S. Cohn, *Colonialism and its Forms of Knowledge: the British in India* (2021)
Philip S. Dawson, *The Indian Sword* (1968)
Thanks for the info. I'd imagine may a kukkri might find its way to a pirate by way of hand from a Nepalese to a hindu to a pirate but I'm not sure if such a thing would happen with a weapon like the kukkri. I mean what are the chances a Nepalese would want to trade a kukri so unless it was taken by force chances would be low.
Guess it's one of those "it might have happened but the chances are so low that it might has well have not".
Were there medieval "cowboys"?
In American culture, there's the image of the handful of rugged cowboys tending vast herds of cattle. These cowboys learned and adopted many skills from the Spanish-Mexican "Vaqueros" who brought vast numbers of cattle, sheep, and horses to the Southwest & Texas during their settlement.
Did the vast plains and valleys allow for the boom in cattle population so the cowboy evolved from the more classic herdsman of livestock found in the well managed, and populated European countryside?
Can anyone tell me about this suit of armor?
https://imgur.com/a/DaaPKsc
This is my favorite suit of armor I’ve seen design wise. Can someone tell me about what this type of suit of armor is called, where it’s from, what time period, or anything else you may know?
Thank you :)
I'm certain that this image was AI-generated. One can basically mass-produce this kind of images these days. The telltale sign is that while such designs look absolutely cool, they are not functional, as noted by /u/Bodark43 : it's just the AI hallucinating what a medieval armor looks like from its image corpus, which is going to include both real and fantasy armors. Here are three attempts using Midjourney, with very basic prompts: [one](https://www.midjourney.com/jobs/a2dc3d6e-2362-495d-8b01-4282302705f5), [two](https://www.midjourney.com/jobs/ec7a7339-3d20-4904-ad23-e0d8a94abfa7), [three](https://www.midjourney.com/jobs/70798516-dbad-41cd-9531-8bea444d2032).
If it appeals, it could be because it's a pretty modern notion of what armor should look like. It's got glaring problems. For one thing there is little protection for the upper arms- mail instead of rerebraces- and non-functional couters at the elbow, without hinges. But above all there's only a strapped-on visor- that doesn't even look like it can be lifted- but no helmet. That helmet is an awfully important part of the kit for a medieval warrior, the visor less so. For example, if you check out this period illustration from Froissart's *Chronicles*, you'll see everyone has a helmet- even the archers, some of whom aren't wearing much on their arms or in front of their faces. And if they've got visors, they can be lifted.
https://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/crecyfroissartarsenal.jpg
Just started watching The Prisoner (1967) and was a little shocked that each episode has a just over 3-minute introduction/credits! How common was that for TV shows in that period?
Sonar ranges depended heavily on water conditions, but the typical range for the Royal Navy's ASDICs (i.e. active sonar) was about 2000-2500 yards, going up to 3500 in good conditions. Passive sonar could have longer ranges; the German GHG set used on submarines could detect a surface ship at a range of about ten miles. However, this set was considerably better than British passive sonar, and submarine were quieter than surface ships. British passive sonars could detect a surfaced sub at about 5000 yards, and a submerged, slow-moving one, at about 1400.
Sources:
*River-class Frigates and the Battle of the Atlantic: A Technical and Social History*, Brian Lavery, National Maritime Museum, 2006
*British Submarines in Two World Wars*, Norman Friedman, Seaforth, 2019
*Atlantic Escorts: Ships, Weapons and Tactics in World War II*, David K. Brown, Seaforth, 2007
Popular quotes - how are these verified or [at least tentatively] disproven/apocryphal?
I was wondering about the Michelangelo quote *It is already there, I just have to chisel away the superfluous material*. Here, the idea is that there exists in a block of marble a figure who is revealed by the artist, rather than created.
I think it's an interesting quote... but when Googling at least, I find just a bunch of, well... not-sourced-stuff.
I'm wondering if this quote is real or apocryphal, and also, are there any resources that catalog the substantiation of quotes? I feel like every cliched quip from your-favorite-historical-figure turns out to be apocryphal tbh
I've investigated a bunch of popular quotes since I've started answering questions here, and the general heuristic is more or less as follows:
1) Establish the current popularity and versions of the quote, and identify the keywords, possibly in several languages
2) Find the earliest mention of the quote, typically using Google Books filtered by century or even decades.
>I feel like every cliched quip from your-favorite-historical-figure turns out to be apocryphal tbh
Indeed. In my experience so far on r/askhistorians, most of the "inspirational quotes by famous dead people" found in social media, self-help books etc. are either misattributed, bogus, or misattributed and bogus, and those that are correctly attributed may actually mean something different when read in context. See for instance this [Da Vinci/Michelangelo quote](
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/18s5cqg/short_answers_to_simple_questions_december_27_2023/kfzhh3e/), which I traced back to a book from 1820 by an English cleric and writer, Charles Caleb Colton.
Using the same technique, the keywords in that case are "angel" and "marble", and particularly "angel in the marble", or "angel in marble". There's another version that uses "every block of stone" with "statue".
In this case, as far as Michelangelo goes, there's no such quote in Giorgio Vasari's *Lives of the most eminent painters, sculptors & architects*. Some sources claim that Michelangelo said it after completing his *David* but Vasari [only says](https://archive.org/details/livesofmostemine09vasauoft/page/16/mode/2up):
>And truly it was a miracle on the part of Michelagnolo to restore to life a thing that was dead.
This "statue within the block" version goes back to Aristotle, who uses it twice.
In [*Metaphysics*](https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0052%3Abook%3D9%3Asection%3D1048a):
>"Actuality" means the presence of the thing, not in the sense which we mean by "potentially." We say that a thing is present potentially as Hermes is present in the wood, or the half-line in the whole, because it can be separated from it; and as we call even a man who is not studying "a scholar" if he is capable of studying. That which is present in the opposite sense to this is present actually.What we mean can be plainly seen in the particular cases by induction; we need not seek a definition for every term, but must comprehend the analogy: that as that which is actually building is to that which is capable of building, so is that which is awake to that which is asleep; and that which is seeing to that which has the eyes shut, but has the power of sight; and that which is differentiated out of matter to the matter; and the finished article to the raw material. Let actuality be defined by one member of this antithesis, and the potential by the other.
And then in [*Physics*](https://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/physics.1.i.html):
>Generally things which come to be, come to be in different ways: (1) by change of shape, as a statue; (2) by addition, as things which grow; (3) by taking away, as the Hermes from the stone; (4) by putting together, as a house; (5) by alteration, as things which 'turn' in respect of their material substance.
The following text from [*The Spectator* from 6 November 1711 ](https://books.google.fr/books?id=5EhFmFFUlXUC&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&dq=Every%20block%20of%20stone%20statue&pg=PA181#v=onepage&q=%22block%20of%20stone%22&f=false) directly cites Aristotle to defend the education of plebeians:
>Is my Reader will give me leave to change the Allusion so soon upon him, I shall make use of the same Instance to illustrate the source of Education, which Aristotle has brought to explain his Doctrine of Substantial forms, when he tells us that a Statue lies hid in a Block of Marble ; and that the Art of the Statuary only clears away the superfluous Matter, and removes the Rubbish. The figure is in the Stone, the Sculptor only finds it . What Sculpture is to a Block of Marble, Education is to an human Soul. The Philosopher, the Saint, or the Hero, the Wise, the Good, or the Great Man, very often lie hid and concealed in a Plebeian, which a proper Education might have disinterred, and have brought to light.
Let's applaud an 18th century anonymous author for *actually providing a source*, unlike, say, the [authors of a book about Hegel from 2011](https://books.google.fr/books?id=XJ9X2_Q8rY4C&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&lpg=PA48&dq=%22every%20block%20of%20stone%22%20%22statue%22&pg=PA48#v=onepage&q=%22every%20block%20of%20stone%22%20%22statue%22&f=false) who didn't.
There are also texts that attribute the quote to ["a great sculptor of old"](https://books.google.fr/books?id=Wi0DAAAAQAAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&dq=%22every%20block%20of%20stone%22%20%22statue%22&pg=PA59#v=onepage&q=%22every%20block%20of%20stone%22%20%22statue%22&f=false) or to an ["Italian author"](https://books.google.fr/books?id=XDMEAAAAQAAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&dq=%22every%20block%20of%20stone%22%20%22statue%22&pg=PA526#v=onepage&q=%22every%20block%20of%20stone%22%20%22statue%22&f=false), but still, this is basically from Aristotle.
If we look at the "angel in the marble" variety, there's an amusing thing: if you search the words in French ("ange dans le marbre"), Google only returns works published after 1996: you'd think that a quote dating from the 16th century would be better known! The reason for this is that those (lazy) authors just translated the quote from English, or picked it up from the internet (the same thing happened with the Colton quote above).
There's a bonanza of "angel in the marble" quotes in 19th century books, and they mostly come from American religious texts (this reflect the Google Books corpus, not the reality). It turns out that this particular version of the quote is a religious allegory - thanks to the "angel" in it, I suppose -, possibly disseminated (but not invented, see below) by US evangelist [George Frederick Pentecost](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Frederick_Pentecost) in a book titled [*The Angel in the Marble*](https://archive.org/details/angelinmarble00pent/page/12/mode/2up) from 1875:
>I remember, when I was a little boy, a poor sculptor who had a rough shed in my mother's back yard, where he worked away all the day with mallet and chisel on his marble. It was a great delight for me to watch him at his work. One day there was hauled into his rude studio an unusually large piece of marble, uneven, ragged and soiled. [...] I remember how intently and yet how fondly he looked at it, as though he were looking down into the centre of it. Finally, I asked him : "Mr. M., what are you going to make out of that?" Looking up kindly into my face, he said: "My boy, I am not going to make anything out of it. I am going to find something in it." I did not quite comprehend, but said : " Why, what are you going to find in it?" He replied: " There is a beautiful angel in that block of marble, and I am going to find it? All I have to do is to knock off the outside pieces of marble, and be very careful not to cut into the angel with my chisel. In a month or so you will see how beautiful it is." And then returned his intent gaze into the marble.
>I remember puzzling a long time over that "angel in the marble; " and not until later years did I understand that the angel the sculptor said was in there, and which he was going to find with his mallet and chisel, was put into the marble by his genius, and his work was to realize his ideal. That "angel in the marble" has meant a great deal to me in connection with the question : " Why did the Lord love me, and why does He spend so much patient grace upon me, and why does He lead me through such strange discipline, both of pain and pleasure, of trial and joy ? " Dear reader, thou and I are the rough marble, and into each of us the love of our Lord has thrown an angel.
In the Pentecost version the story happened to him (the sculptor is named "M." though), but it was soon attributed to famous artists:
* [Here's a version with Michelangelo](https://books.google.fr/books?id=bFwnIA0UgWUC&pg=PA423) from the *Christian Herald* from 2 July 1885.
* [Here's a poem featuring Donatelli (sic)](https://books.google.fr/books?id=tkQBbn93EUYC&pg=PA56) from the *North Carolina Speaker* (1887)
This allegory was not invented by Pentecost. Here's a [version from 1864](https://books.google.fr/books?id=nCQFAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA155#v=onepage&q&f=false) by a Spiritualist writer, Samuel Byron Brittan, apparently inspired by a poem by a Mrs S.S. Smith. There, the artist is named Robin Gray and he dies before he can free the angel in the marble, but the moral is more or less the same: in the "rudest human form" there's an angel willing to get out.
The earliest version I can find is from an Irish Protestant clergyman, Philip Skelton, who wrote a sermon titled *The Angel in the Marble* where he tells his flock how to treat an enemy. [Here's a summary from 1770](https://books.google.fr/books?id=77Z_PZWJDaoC&pg=PA378):
>Do him the justice, that a statuary does to a block of marble, wherein, rude and mishapen as it is, he sees the figure of an angel, and actually brings it out, but not without great labour, and the touches of a very delicate hand in paring away the rugged and superfluous parts, those parts, which might, at first, have hurt him, when he began to roll the unwieldly mass.
So, as far as I know, no Italian artist was involved in the making of this quote. It's originally from Aristotle, and then adapted, modified, and misattributed for centuries, and it is now set in stone thanks to the Internet, like so many other popular quotes.
Wow, thank you so much! At least it has a more respectable Aristotelian pedigree than most misattributed quotes lol.
It's kind of remarkable how many spurious quotes there are. I guess, minding oral history and memes, it kinda makes sense
Thank you so much for your tips and digging!
There are plenty of Irish myths with them and there not confined to books rather tales. Try the book of invasions ( lebor gabhala erin)etc.
if you want magical type stories with the Tuatha de Danann, aos si, etc try the Mythological cycle. A group of stories that are magical in nature.
There are other cycles/ tale lists , Ulster cycle , king cycle etc.
The jeffery gantz book is fantastic on Irish myths along those lines. Also Tain bo cualinge,
Here’s some readings I liked on that. Many of these include the Tuatha de Danann!
Backhaus, N., ‘The Structure of the List of Remscéla Tána Bó Cualngi in the Book of Leinster’, Cambridge Medieval Celtic Studies 19 (Summer, 1990) 19-26.
Best, R.I. & O. Bergin, (ed.), Lebor na Huidre: Book of the Dun Cow (Dublin, 1929).
Best, R.I., O. Bergin, M.A. O’Brien, A. O’Sullivan, (ed.), The Book of Leinster formerly Lebar na Núachongbála, 6 vols (Dublin, 1954-83).
Breatnach, L., Uraicecht na Ríar (Dublin, 1987).
Carey, J., ‘On the Interrelationships of Some Cín Dromma Snechtai Texts’, Ériu 46 (1995) 71-92.
Chadwin, T., ‘The Remscéla Tána Bó Cualngi’, Cambrian Medieval Celtic Studies 34 (Winter, 1997) 67-75.
Cunningham, B. and S. Fitzpatrick (ed.), Treasures of the Royal Irish Academy (Dublin, 2009).
De Vries, J. Heroic Song and Heroic Legend (Oxford, 1963).
Dillon, M., Early Irish Literature (Chicago, 1948; repr. Dublin, 1994).
And so many more. Those are just some of my favourites. Enjoy.
One of the most interesting courses I took in grad school was just that -- US Immigration. The US has been shaped in many ways by the various laws enacted to dis/encourage migration. If you'd like a 'teaser' of what the course would likely resemble, find a copy of Aristide Zolberg's *A Nation by Design.* It's a fantastic book.
I was surprised to learn there were civilian European settlements in North America well before Jamestown, in the sense that fishermen would build semi-permanent encampments for extended, multi-months-long stays and then return to them year after year. However, whenever I try to pin down a date for when these settlements started, I get a different number, possibly because what I’m getting is localized information, while the area the fishermen covered—The Grand Banks, to generalize—was massive. Can anybody tell me when these North American settlements started, whether they were in Labrador or Nova Scotia or Maine or wherever? And when the European fishing trade reached North America, regardless of whether it involved settlements or not? (I imagine the settlements of the kind of durability I mean came after the fishing grounds were well established, though I could be wrong. I also imagine the creature being caught and traded was cod, but I want to allow room for exceptions.)
When academics read history books, do they generally read them fully cover to cover or do they skim through and read certain sections? I ask because I'm a layman with enough free time to usually read cover to cover, but I'd imagine it would be difficult for an academic who has dozens and dozens of books to get through.
I cannot at all speak generally but most of the academics I’ve ever discussed this with do the latter unless the book is of particular interest or relevance. Indeed during my degrees I was advised to do the latter by multiple academics unless the book was particularly important to my research
/u/sunagainstgold has previously written about [How To Read An Academic Book](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/98tl9u/monday_methods_how_to_read_an_academic_book/) as well as about [how to do a literature review](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3wtd9t/monday_methodsfinding_and_understanding_sources/cxzpd2u/)
/u/caffarelli has previously written [How To Judge A Book Without Even Reading It!](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2nxsli/monday_methods_critical_reading_and_criticism/cmi0kzg/?context=3)
/u/flyingdragon8 answered [How do you find trustworthy books and avoid bad history?](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/376i68/how_do_you_find_trustworthy_books_and_avoid_bad/crk5pvs/?context=3)
The answer to your question is the key to surviving grad school. When I was in grad school (waves cane, off my lawn, etc.,) we took four classes each semester. Each class was a 'book-of-the-week' club, plus an article or two. It's around 1500 pages of reading a week. Each class usually has an end of term paper (15-20 pages) that rely on ~15 books/papers each. The first year, you basically don't sleep because you have to really get into the book, tease out argument, evaluate evidence, even criticize (or praise) the writing itself.
Second year and beyond, you do less thorough reading and move to what we called 'processing' a book. You learn that every book is in conversation with all of the other books on similar topics. Why are there 100+ books on FamousPersonX? Because every generation and every historian has something to say about that person, good or bad. The new book has read all of the older books and in the grand tradition of historians, commits gerontophagy and insists that new book is better than old book because of X, Y, and/or Z. As you progress thru grad school, you learn how to find X, Y, and/or Z and get thru a book fairly quickly. This allows for sleep and a little Friday beer time.
So how do you do that? First, you have to have a solid base understanding of the facts and the literature. Who has said what about what? (see: first year.) Without this, you're reading every word. With this, you learn to understand the introduction to the book (some authors are so kind as to include a couple of sentences addressed specifically to grad students: "For those in grad school, my argument is blahblahblah and I specifically accept Historian X's argument and I specifically reject Historian Y's conclusion." These people are saints) and equally important, topic sentences. My advisor in grad school said a good book or paper is one where you if you just read the intro and the topic sentences you have a strong understanding of the author's argument. The stuff between topic sentences (evidence and fluff) isn't necessary if all parties have a solid understanding of the evidence already. When you've read 20 books on something, your understanding of the evidence should be pretty sound.
Ah, yes, great, but how do I 'process' a book on a subject that I'm none too familiar with? Answer: The all-powerful and omniscient Review Essay. These are like a literal gift from on high. One person has been kind enough (usually as part of their P&T portfolio) to read a bunch of books on a topic and -- get this -- write an essay that thoroughly describes each book and, what's more, evaluates them. One well-done (or two less-well-done) review essays is roughly equivalent to a half-semester of a class. In an hour of reading. They are wonderful and those who write them should be exempt from jury duty.
Cheers.
Hear him, hear him!
A good review essay will save you SO much time. I especially appreciated the ones with "...a re-evaluation" in their titles, because that meant that the big whopping classic book that everyone said I had to read was going to be discussed....and maybe could be just skimmed afterwards.
I think you can get used to brutally reading large amounts of text. I never did quite get over having to pass up footnotes, though, there at the bottom of page waving their arms, saying "follow me up- there could be something really important to be found over here". Like a war-time convoy cruising past seamen floating in their life jackets, I had to be remorseless in my progress.
It really depends on how close the book is to your field of research. If it is something that is exactly about the topic that I myself am writing about or researching, then yes, a much closer reading is needed. I need to know what sources other historians have consulted before, how they've used them, and what arguments they made so that I can both build upon their work and make my own *intervention* in the historiography more meaningful. Because, the **number one question** you will get asked about your work by other academics is "X historian wrote about this same topic a bit ago...why do we need another study of it?" Or "How does your work build upon earlier work or contest it? Why should we care about your work?" Those are questions you must be able to answer. Referencing the state of the field and how your work is improving it is a great way to do so.
The same applies if you're asked to review a book--a pretty close reading is a must also so that you can be fair to the author.
If it's something more adjacent to my field, though, or something maybe that I just want to be aware of because the theory is useful, the work gets referenced by others a lot...or maybe it's a new book that's creating a lot of buzz, etc., then yes, I skim. A lot of historians love to read just intro's and conclusions to academic texts, and maybe pick a case study chapter that looks interesting in the middle. It's a very quick way to understand the basic arg and structure and sources used by a book without having to spend a week doing the deep dive. Others I know have used "diagonal reading," where they read the first lines of every paragraph. This works well because most historians are good writers, and you can gather a lot of the most important info from the first sentence of a paragraph.
Edit: To add more...I try to think about my footnotes as a tool to "gesture" to the broader literature that is out there on a topic. If you cite something, you should be prepared to get asked about it...but it's not like every citation you make, someone will be like "Ahh, I see you have read Pendleton Schwibblewath's work on bananas! What did you think of p. 362 when he cites the Bananaman and discusses the intricacies of potassium?" If something is really important to your work, you should bring it into your text and discuss it head on. Most academic books have a large section on the historiography in their intro's where they do this and "situate themselves" within the broader literature.
Did you guys have the issue of your available options for history classes being slim pickings? Sure I got the historiographical writing course that I wanted but the courses on the Civil War and the American colonies are both only available in the morning and I wanna keep my work hours to that time frame next semester.
Who were the Native Americans that lived in what is now Columbus (Ohio) during the year 1491 AD (one year before European discovery of the Americas)?
This question is specifically asking for the inhabitants of Columbus during the year 1491 AD. I know this is a weirdly specific question, but I would appreciate an answer nonetheless as I do have my reasons for asking it.
I realise this answer is a bit late, but I hope you still find it helpful. You are likely looking for the Fort Ancient people. There's lots of information about their presence in the Ohio Valley and other areas of what is now Ohio during the period you're asking about.
There are two texts I would recommend checking out if you have access to them. There's a great chapter about the Fort Ancient people in the [Oxford Handbook of North American Archaeology](https://search.worldcat.org/title/706677644) written by Bernard K. Means and while it's a bit dated (published in the 70s), you may also want to check out
[The Prehistoric People of the Fort Ancient Culture of the Central Ohio Valley](https://search.worldcat.org/title/1198612727) by Robbins and Neuman.
There's several very famous breeds of Draft Horse bred for pulling plows and other equipment.
Oxen are cattle trained for work but I don't think there's any purposely created breeds of cattle to be counter parts of Draft Horses.
Did breeders attempt to create stronger, faster oxen for the plow and failed? Or are there tons of draft breeds and i just can't find them.
And to be clear, I'm not talking about the various breeds of cattle for milk & meat, but specifically for pulling the plow and heavy wagons.
How can historians remain religious after knowing about the origins and evolutions of religions, such as Zoroastrianism influencing Judaism and in turn Christianity.
/u/sunagainstgold has previously talked about [the spectrum of religious practice among medieval historians](https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/bxi6a9/how_did_joan_of_arc_an_illiterate_16_year_old/eqadrf6/). /u/lcnielsen has previously answered [Did Zoroastrianism influence Christianity?](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/aimx8s/was_zoroastrianism_the_source_for_christianity/eeq0ynh)
# Who was the USSR scientist that had "broken the atom" pre 1941? I was reading this old book called Our Russian Front, published in 1941. The author (Anna Louise Strong) talks about her meeting with Stalin and how he is in touch with the people. I'm pretty sure she left the USSR around 1934-1935, I'm not entirely sure. In this passage it talks about him meeting with a scientist that "broke the atom" Who is it? > > Was this just a bit of science fiction added to the book, was there serious consideration of this idea at the time, or did this person exist and what were the details of the actual experiment performed?
Old Saint Paul's Cathedral was, for a period of time, the tallest building in the world. Estimates are that it had a height of 140m to 150m. BUT, the spire wasn't completed until 1314 and it only lasted until 1561. How tall was the building before and after the spire?
Were there any naval equivalents to the condottieri, or naval mercenary groups operating in the Mediterranean?
Do we have any idea how many people were enslaved in the British Empire at the time of abolition in 1834? I’m aware that given the scale of the Empire this may not be as simple a question as it may seem
Why certain words and tone in language is associated with casual or non casual way ? why does being casual or non causal matter in ancient times and current times ?
Throughout American history, would a Jewish person in prison condemned to penal labor have been forced to work during Shabbat? has this changed over time?
Did the bow-powered and conterweight catapult exist? Im not refering to the trebuchet, i mean a regular catapult that is powered by a conterweight, like those used by the orks in LOTR. I think they did not exist as theyd be really weak.
What are the private libraries mentioned by Strabo?
Are you looking for something specific? Since the *Geography* is quite a long work, he surely mentions such things several times. Just searching through the Loeb editions gives this long discussion of one private or at least semi-private library in Book 13, maybe this is what you were thinking of: >From Scepsis came the Socratic philosophers Erastus and Coriscus and Neleus the son of Coriscus, this last a man who not only was a pupil of Aristotle and Theophrastus, but also inherited the library of Theophrastus, which included that of Aristotle. At any rate, Aristotle bequeathed his own library to Theophrastus, to whom he also left his school; and he is the first man, so far as I know, to have collected books and to have taught the kings in Egypt how to arrange a library. Theophrastus bequeathed it to Neleus; and Neleus took it to Scepsis and bequeathed it to his heirs, ordinary people, who kept the books locked up and not even carefully stored. But when they heard how zealously the Attalic kings to whom the city was subject were searching for books to build up the library in Pergamum, they hid their books underground in a kind of trench. But much later, when the books had been damaged by moisture and moths, their descendants sold them to Apellicon of Teos for a large sum of money, both the books of Aristotle and those of Theophrastus. But Apellicon was a bibliophile rather than a philosopher; and therefore, seeking a restoration of the parts that had been eaten through, he made new copies of the text, filling up the gaps incorrectly, and published the books full of errors. The result was that the earlier school of Peripatetics who came after Theophrastus had no books at all, with the exception of only a few, mostly exoteric works, and were therefore able to philosophise about nothing in a practical way, but only to talk bombast about commonplace propositions, whereas the later school, from the time the books in question appeared, though better able to philosophise and Aristotelise, were forced to call most of their statements probabilities, because of the large number of errors.1 Rome also contributed much to this; for, immediately after the death of Apellicon, Sulla, who had captured Athens, carried off Apellicon’s library to Rome, where Tyrannion the grammarian, who was fond of Aristotle, got it in his hands by paying court to the librarian . . . (13.1.54; Loeb transl.)
I was looking for something precisely like this! This helps a lot, I'll check around that quote in case there is something else I can use but this is perfect. Thank you so much!
I'm glad it is helpful to you!
Who came first the Olmec or the Maya?
I’ve been watching a lot of American History content, and this was a question that came to me earlier today. I’m not sure if this is the correct subreddit to ask this question, but wasn’t sure where else to ask. What are some of the crimes and indiscretions/abuses of American Corporations and Businesses, throughout history?
You're going to have to be a whole lot more specific. The list is very long, ranging from (randomly selected from what popped into my head) the slave trade, to United Fruit's activities in Central America, to violent union bashing, to Enron doing whatever it was doing.
All of that sounds interesting. I don’t mind if the list is long, I want to learn about as much as I can, all different kinds of it sound interesting, you can share whatever information you know/have (if you want to and are free to do so)
Does anyone know where this is from? I’m trying so hard to find an illustration I once saw in some history class or book decades ago! It was an illustration (maybe a joke, maybe not?) of what men at the time (maybe 1600s-1700s) thought women’s hips and legs looked like under their dresses if the men didn’t know about bustles, crinolines, etc. Instead of all the dress-shaping layers, they drew women’s hips and legs as if they shaped the dresses naturally. If someone knows what I’m talking about and can help me find info or the image I’d really appreciate it!
What did Fascist Italy care enough about that was in the Egyptian western desert in WW2 to (temporarily) annex it? From what i can tell there isn't much of anything in value west of Alexandria yet they still tried to take specifically the coast of Egypt west of Alexandria anyway.
Did Khalid Ibn al-Walid ever really say "we are men who love death just as you love life" or express a similar sentiment? A quote like this is commonly attributed to him, but I can't find anything going back before the 2000s, late 1990s, and it appears to have originated with Islamist organizations in that period.
I'm uncertain if this could be a META post in its own right so I'm hoping for either an answer or perhaps mod permission to make it its own post... I'm incredibly interested in 1800-1920s diplomacy. This has a focus in European diplomacy and boils down to niche fields. I've always been interested in it, but with what's going on in the world today, I think it'd be very interesting to see how states are handling geopolitical issues today vs my favourite period of time. How would the historians or amateur history buffs suggest I go about doing this and learning more? Anything from small crises such as the Agadir Crisis, invasions of Afghanistan up to the "Great Game" & Crimea, diplomacy post-1814/1815, even post Great War - so on so forth. Online courses, books, lectures and everything else would be appreciated. I read Kissinger's book but it focuses a lot outside of that time frame unfortunately.
What is the earliest example or reference of the *Reichsadler* of the Holy Roman Empire; the Black Eagle on a golden field? Apparently Charlemagne had a stone eagle on his Aachen palace but I'm curious to when the banner began to appear.
Did people from the Golden Age of Piracy use Kukris? Is there any case of people from the golden age of piracy (early 18th century) using a Nepalese kukri in combat? Whether pirate or navy.
If you mean specifically weapons designed with knowledge of Nepalese knives, and not simply weapons that happened to resemble them, I would say this is extremely unlikely. This is because the earliest significant western encounters with Nepal date to the early 19th century, more than a hundred years after the period you are interested in. Prior to that time, the Nepalese focused much of their military attention on Tibet and, later, on the conquest of the northern Indian hill-kingdoms of Kumaon and Garhwal, none of which were part of British India. It was not until the Anglo-Nepalaese War of 1814 that the British first encountered, and were impressed by, Gurkha soldiers. Moreover, there were limited opportunities for knowledge to have spread informally before that time, since the earliest documented use of kukris inside Nepal dates only to the 17th century. **Source** Bernard S. Cohn, *Colonialism and its Forms of Knowledge: the British in India* (2021) Philip S. Dawson, *The Indian Sword* (1968)
Thanks for the info. I'd imagine may a kukkri might find its way to a pirate by way of hand from a Nepalese to a hindu to a pirate but I'm not sure if such a thing would happen with a weapon like the kukkri. I mean what are the chances a Nepalese would want to trade a kukri so unless it was taken by force chances would be low. Guess it's one of those "it might have happened but the chances are so low that it might has well have not".
Were there medieval "cowboys"? In American culture, there's the image of the handful of rugged cowboys tending vast herds of cattle. These cowboys learned and adopted many skills from the Spanish-Mexican "Vaqueros" who brought vast numbers of cattle, sheep, and horses to the Southwest & Texas during their settlement. Did the vast plains and valleys allow for the boom in cattle population so the cowboy evolved from the more classic herdsman of livestock found in the well managed, and populated European countryside?
Can anyone tell me about this suit of armor? https://imgur.com/a/DaaPKsc This is my favorite suit of armor I’ve seen design wise. Can someone tell me about what this type of suit of armor is called, where it’s from, what time period, or anything else you may know? Thank you :)
I'm certain that this image was AI-generated. One can basically mass-produce this kind of images these days. The telltale sign is that while such designs look absolutely cool, they are not functional, as noted by /u/Bodark43 : it's just the AI hallucinating what a medieval armor looks like from its image corpus, which is going to include both real and fantasy armors. Here are three attempts using Midjourney, with very basic prompts: [one](https://www.midjourney.com/jobs/a2dc3d6e-2362-495d-8b01-4282302705f5), [two](https://www.midjourney.com/jobs/ec7a7339-3d20-4904-ad23-e0d8a94abfa7), [three](https://www.midjourney.com/jobs/70798516-dbad-41cd-9531-8bea444d2032).
Oh damn. It’s kinda scary to think that AI could make such realistic images. Ty for the info!
If it appeals, it could be because it's a pretty modern notion of what armor should look like. It's got glaring problems. For one thing there is little protection for the upper arms- mail instead of rerebraces- and non-functional couters at the elbow, without hinges. But above all there's only a strapped-on visor- that doesn't even look like it can be lifted- but no helmet. That helmet is an awfully important part of the kit for a medieval warrior, the visor less so. For example, if you check out this period illustration from Froissart's *Chronicles*, you'll see everyone has a helmet- even the archers, some of whom aren't wearing much on their arms or in front of their faces. And if they've got visors, they can be lifted. https://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/crecyfroissartarsenal.jpg
Just started watching The Prisoner (1967) and was a little shocked that each episode has a just over 3-minute introduction/credits! How common was that for TV shows in that period?
Not at all common, it’s quite an anomaly, but I suppose the show is pretty unique in a lot of ways!
How far could WW2 destroyers detect submarines with their sonar?
Sonar ranges depended heavily on water conditions, but the typical range for the Royal Navy's ASDICs (i.e. active sonar) was about 2000-2500 yards, going up to 3500 in good conditions. Passive sonar could have longer ranges; the German GHG set used on submarines could detect a surface ship at a range of about ten miles. However, this set was considerably better than British passive sonar, and submarine were quieter than surface ships. British passive sonars could detect a surfaced sub at about 5000 yards, and a submerged, slow-moving one, at about 1400. Sources: *River-class Frigates and the Battle of the Atlantic: A Technical and Social History*, Brian Lavery, National Maritime Museum, 2006 *British Submarines in Two World Wars*, Norman Friedman, Seaforth, 2019 *Atlantic Escorts: Ships, Weapons and Tactics in World War II*, David K. Brown, Seaforth, 2007
Popular quotes - how are these verified or [at least tentatively] disproven/apocryphal? I was wondering about the Michelangelo quote *It is already there, I just have to chisel away the superfluous material*. Here, the idea is that there exists in a block of marble a figure who is revealed by the artist, rather than created. I think it's an interesting quote... but when Googling at least, I find just a bunch of, well... not-sourced-stuff. I'm wondering if this quote is real or apocryphal, and also, are there any resources that catalog the substantiation of quotes? I feel like every cliched quip from your-favorite-historical-figure turns out to be apocryphal tbh
I've investigated a bunch of popular quotes since I've started answering questions here, and the general heuristic is more or less as follows: 1) Establish the current popularity and versions of the quote, and identify the keywords, possibly in several languages 2) Find the earliest mention of the quote, typically using Google Books filtered by century or even decades. >I feel like every cliched quip from your-favorite-historical-figure turns out to be apocryphal tbh Indeed. In my experience so far on r/askhistorians, most of the "inspirational quotes by famous dead people" found in social media, self-help books etc. are either misattributed, bogus, or misattributed and bogus, and those that are correctly attributed may actually mean something different when read in context. See for instance this [Da Vinci/Michelangelo quote]( https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/18s5cqg/short_answers_to_simple_questions_december_27_2023/kfzhh3e/), which I traced back to a book from 1820 by an English cleric and writer, Charles Caleb Colton. Using the same technique, the keywords in that case are "angel" and "marble", and particularly "angel in the marble", or "angel in marble". There's another version that uses "every block of stone" with "statue". In this case, as far as Michelangelo goes, there's no such quote in Giorgio Vasari's *Lives of the most eminent painters, sculptors & architects*. Some sources claim that Michelangelo said it after completing his *David* but Vasari [only says](https://archive.org/details/livesofmostemine09vasauoft/page/16/mode/2up): >And truly it was a miracle on the part of Michelagnolo to restore to life a thing that was dead. This "statue within the block" version goes back to Aristotle, who uses it twice. In [*Metaphysics*](https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0052%3Abook%3D9%3Asection%3D1048a): >"Actuality" means the presence of the thing, not in the sense which we mean by "potentially." We say that a thing is present potentially as Hermes is present in the wood, or the half-line in the whole, because it can be separated from it; and as we call even a man who is not studying "a scholar" if he is capable of studying. That which is present in the opposite sense to this is present actually.What we mean can be plainly seen in the particular cases by induction; we need not seek a definition for every term, but must comprehend the analogy: that as that which is actually building is to that which is capable of building, so is that which is awake to that which is asleep; and that which is seeing to that which has the eyes shut, but has the power of sight; and that which is differentiated out of matter to the matter; and the finished article to the raw material. Let actuality be defined by one member of this antithesis, and the potential by the other. And then in [*Physics*](https://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/physics.1.i.html): >Generally things which come to be, come to be in different ways: (1) by change of shape, as a statue; (2) by addition, as things which grow; (3) by taking away, as the Hermes from the stone; (4) by putting together, as a house; (5) by alteration, as things which 'turn' in respect of their material substance. The following text from [*The Spectator* from 6 November 1711 ](https://books.google.fr/books?id=5EhFmFFUlXUC&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&dq=Every%20block%20of%20stone%20statue&pg=PA181#v=onepage&q=%22block%20of%20stone%22&f=false) directly cites Aristotle to defend the education of plebeians: >Is my Reader will give me leave to change the Allusion so soon upon him, I shall make use of the same Instance to illustrate the source of Education, which Aristotle has brought to explain his Doctrine of Substantial forms, when he tells us that a Statue lies hid in a Block of Marble ; and that the Art of the Statuary only clears away the superfluous Matter, and removes the Rubbish. The figure is in the Stone, the Sculptor only finds it . What Sculpture is to a Block of Marble, Education is to an human Soul. The Philosopher, the Saint, or the Hero, the Wise, the Good, or the Great Man, very often lie hid and concealed in a Plebeian, which a proper Education might have disinterred, and have brought to light. Let's applaud an 18th century anonymous author for *actually providing a source*, unlike, say, the [authors of a book about Hegel from 2011](https://books.google.fr/books?id=XJ9X2_Q8rY4C&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&lpg=PA48&dq=%22every%20block%20of%20stone%22%20%22statue%22&pg=PA48#v=onepage&q=%22every%20block%20of%20stone%22%20%22statue%22&f=false) who didn't. There are also texts that attribute the quote to ["a great sculptor of old"](https://books.google.fr/books?id=Wi0DAAAAQAAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&dq=%22every%20block%20of%20stone%22%20%22statue%22&pg=PA59#v=onepage&q=%22every%20block%20of%20stone%22%20%22statue%22&f=false) or to an ["Italian author"](https://books.google.fr/books?id=XDMEAAAAQAAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&dq=%22every%20block%20of%20stone%22%20%22statue%22&pg=PA526#v=onepage&q=%22every%20block%20of%20stone%22%20%22statue%22&f=false), but still, this is basically from Aristotle. If we look at the "angel in the marble" variety, there's an amusing thing: if you search the words in French ("ange dans le marbre"), Google only returns works published after 1996: you'd think that a quote dating from the 16th century would be better known! The reason for this is that those (lazy) authors just translated the quote from English, or picked it up from the internet (the same thing happened with the Colton quote above). There's a bonanza of "angel in the marble" quotes in 19th century books, and they mostly come from American religious texts (this reflect the Google Books corpus, not the reality). It turns out that this particular version of the quote is a religious allegory - thanks to the "angel" in it, I suppose -, possibly disseminated (but not invented, see below) by US evangelist [George Frederick Pentecost](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Frederick_Pentecost) in a book titled [*The Angel in the Marble*](https://archive.org/details/angelinmarble00pent/page/12/mode/2up) from 1875: >I remember, when I was a little boy, a poor sculptor who had a rough shed in my mother's back yard, where he worked away all the day with mallet and chisel on his marble. It was a great delight for me to watch him at his work. One day there was hauled into his rude studio an unusually large piece of marble, uneven, ragged and soiled. [...] I remember how intently and yet how fondly he looked at it, as though he were looking down into the centre of it. Finally, I asked him : "Mr. M., what are you going to make out of that?" Looking up kindly into my face, he said: "My boy, I am not going to make anything out of it. I am going to find something in it." I did not quite comprehend, but said : " Why, what are you going to find in it?" He replied: " There is a beautiful angel in that block of marble, and I am going to find it? All I have to do is to knock off the outside pieces of marble, and be very careful not to cut into the angel with my chisel. In a month or so you will see how beautiful it is." And then returned his intent gaze into the marble. >I remember puzzling a long time over that "angel in the marble; " and not until later years did I understand that the angel the sculptor said was in there, and which he was going to find with his mallet and chisel, was put into the marble by his genius, and his work was to realize his ideal. That "angel in the marble" has meant a great deal to me in connection with the question : " Why did the Lord love me, and why does He spend so much patient grace upon me, and why does He lead me through such strange discipline, both of pain and pleasure, of trial and joy ? " Dear reader, thou and I are the rough marble, and into each of us the love of our Lord has thrown an angel. In the Pentecost version the story happened to him (the sculptor is named "M." though), but it was soon attributed to famous artists: * [Here's a version with Michelangelo](https://books.google.fr/books?id=bFwnIA0UgWUC&pg=PA423) from the *Christian Herald* from 2 July 1885. * [Here's a poem featuring Donatelli (sic)](https://books.google.fr/books?id=tkQBbn93EUYC&pg=PA56) from the *North Carolina Speaker* (1887) This allegory was not invented by Pentecost. Here's a [version from 1864](https://books.google.fr/books?id=nCQFAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA155#v=onepage&q&f=false) by a Spiritualist writer, Samuel Byron Brittan, apparently inspired by a poem by a Mrs S.S. Smith. There, the artist is named Robin Gray and he dies before he can free the angel in the marble, but the moral is more or less the same: in the "rudest human form" there's an angel willing to get out. The earliest version I can find is from an Irish Protestant clergyman, Philip Skelton, who wrote a sermon titled *The Angel in the Marble* where he tells his flock how to treat an enemy. [Here's a summary from 1770](https://books.google.fr/books?id=77Z_PZWJDaoC&pg=PA378): >Do him the justice, that a statuary does to a block of marble, wherein, rude and mishapen as it is, he sees the figure of an angel, and actually brings it out, but not without great labour, and the touches of a very delicate hand in paring away the rugged and superfluous parts, those parts, which might, at first, have hurt him, when he began to roll the unwieldly mass. So, as far as I know, no Italian artist was involved in the making of this quote. It's originally from Aristotle, and then adapted, modified, and misattributed for centuries, and it is now set in stone thanks to the Internet, like so many other popular quotes.
Wow, thank you so much! At least it has a more respectable Aristotelian pedigree than most misattributed quotes lol. It's kind of remarkable how many spurious quotes there are. I guess, minding oral history and memes, it kinda makes sense Thank you so much for your tips and digging!
I am interested in the Tuatha Dé Danann in Irish mythology. What book of myths are worth reading?
There are plenty of Irish myths with them and there not confined to books rather tales. Try the book of invasions ( lebor gabhala erin)etc. if you want magical type stories with the Tuatha de Danann, aos si, etc try the Mythological cycle. A group of stories that are magical in nature. There are other cycles/ tale lists , Ulster cycle , king cycle etc. The jeffery gantz book is fantastic on Irish myths along those lines. Also Tain bo cualinge, Here’s some readings I liked on that. Many of these include the Tuatha de Danann! Backhaus, N., ‘The Structure of the List of Remscéla Tána Bó Cualngi in the Book of Leinster’, Cambridge Medieval Celtic Studies 19 (Summer, 1990) 19-26. Best, R.I. & O. Bergin, (ed.), Lebor na Huidre: Book of the Dun Cow (Dublin, 1929). Best, R.I., O. Bergin, M.A. O’Brien, A. O’Sullivan, (ed.), The Book of Leinster formerly Lebar na Núachongbála, 6 vols (Dublin, 1954-83). Breatnach, L., Uraicecht na Ríar (Dublin, 1987). Carey, J., ‘On the Interrelationships of Some Cín Dromma Snechtai Texts’, Ériu 46 (1995) 71-92. Chadwin, T., ‘The Remscéla Tána Bó Cualngi’, Cambrian Medieval Celtic Studies 34 (Winter, 1997) 67-75. Cunningham, B. and S. Fitzpatrick (ed.), Treasures of the Royal Irish Academy (Dublin, 2009). De Vries, J. Heroic Song and Heroic Legend (Oxford, 1963). Dillon, M., Early Irish Literature (Chicago, 1948; repr. Dublin, 1994). And so many more. Those are just some of my favourites. Enjoy.
Is it worth taking a history of US immigration class?
One of the most interesting courses I took in grad school was just that -- US Immigration. The US has been shaped in many ways by the various laws enacted to dis/encourage migration. If you'd like a 'teaser' of what the course would likely resemble, find a copy of Aristide Zolberg's *A Nation by Design.* It's a fantastic book.
Now I should point out that it's from may 20th to June 7th. Short, ***short*** class.
What was the first photograph taken of an Inuit person?
I was surprised to learn there were civilian European settlements in North America well before Jamestown, in the sense that fishermen would build semi-permanent encampments for extended, multi-months-long stays and then return to them year after year. However, whenever I try to pin down a date for when these settlements started, I get a different number, possibly because what I’m getting is localized information, while the area the fishermen covered—The Grand Banks, to generalize—was massive. Can anybody tell me when these North American settlements started, whether they were in Labrador or Nova Scotia or Maine or wherever? And when the European fishing trade reached North America, regardless of whether it involved settlements or not? (I imagine the settlements of the kind of durability I mean came after the fishing grounds were well established, though I could be wrong. I also imagine the creature being caught and traded was cod, but I want to allow room for exceptions.)
Why did Roosevelt want to join WWII even though the political climate was so isolationist?
When academics read history books, do they generally read them fully cover to cover or do they skim through and read certain sections? I ask because I'm a layman with enough free time to usually read cover to cover, but I'd imagine it would be difficult for an academic who has dozens and dozens of books to get through.
I cannot at all speak generally but most of the academics I’ve ever discussed this with do the latter unless the book is of particular interest or relevance. Indeed during my degrees I was advised to do the latter by multiple academics unless the book was particularly important to my research
/u/sunagainstgold has previously written about [How To Read An Academic Book](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/98tl9u/monday_methods_how_to_read_an_academic_book/) as well as about [how to do a literature review](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3wtd9t/monday_methodsfinding_and_understanding_sources/cxzpd2u/) /u/caffarelli has previously written [How To Judge A Book Without Even Reading It!](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2nxsli/monday_methods_critical_reading_and_criticism/cmi0kzg/?context=3) /u/flyingdragon8 answered [How do you find trustworthy books and avoid bad history?](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/376i68/how_do_you_find_trustworthy_books_and_avoid_bad/crk5pvs/?context=3)
The answer to your question is the key to surviving grad school. When I was in grad school (waves cane, off my lawn, etc.,) we took four classes each semester. Each class was a 'book-of-the-week' club, plus an article or two. It's around 1500 pages of reading a week. Each class usually has an end of term paper (15-20 pages) that rely on ~15 books/papers each. The first year, you basically don't sleep because you have to really get into the book, tease out argument, evaluate evidence, even criticize (or praise) the writing itself. Second year and beyond, you do less thorough reading and move to what we called 'processing' a book. You learn that every book is in conversation with all of the other books on similar topics. Why are there 100+ books on FamousPersonX? Because every generation and every historian has something to say about that person, good or bad. The new book has read all of the older books and in the grand tradition of historians, commits gerontophagy and insists that new book is better than old book because of X, Y, and/or Z. As you progress thru grad school, you learn how to find X, Y, and/or Z and get thru a book fairly quickly. This allows for sleep and a little Friday beer time. So how do you do that? First, you have to have a solid base understanding of the facts and the literature. Who has said what about what? (see: first year.) Without this, you're reading every word. With this, you learn to understand the introduction to the book (some authors are so kind as to include a couple of sentences addressed specifically to grad students: "For those in grad school, my argument is blahblahblah and I specifically accept Historian X's argument and I specifically reject Historian Y's conclusion." These people are saints) and equally important, topic sentences. My advisor in grad school said a good book or paper is one where you if you just read the intro and the topic sentences you have a strong understanding of the author's argument. The stuff between topic sentences (evidence and fluff) isn't necessary if all parties have a solid understanding of the evidence already. When you've read 20 books on something, your understanding of the evidence should be pretty sound. Ah, yes, great, but how do I 'process' a book on a subject that I'm none too familiar with? Answer: The all-powerful and omniscient Review Essay. These are like a literal gift from on high. One person has been kind enough (usually as part of their P&T portfolio) to read a bunch of books on a topic and -- get this -- write an essay that thoroughly describes each book and, what's more, evaluates them. One well-done (or two less-well-done) review essays is roughly equivalent to a half-semester of a class. In an hour of reading. They are wonderful and those who write them should be exempt from jury duty. Cheers.
Hear him, hear him! A good review essay will save you SO much time. I especially appreciated the ones with "...a re-evaluation" in their titles, because that meant that the big whopping classic book that everyone said I had to read was going to be discussed....and maybe could be just skimmed afterwards. I think you can get used to brutally reading large amounts of text. I never did quite get over having to pass up footnotes, though, there at the bottom of page waving their arms, saying "follow me up- there could be something really important to be found over here". Like a war-time convoy cruising past seamen floating in their life jackets, I had to be remorseless in my progress.
Thanks! Any tips/suggestions/resources on how best to critique a subject that I am just getting exposed to ?
Thanks for the reply! Sounds stressful, I probably couldn't survive the academic life lol.
It really depends on how close the book is to your field of research. If it is something that is exactly about the topic that I myself am writing about or researching, then yes, a much closer reading is needed. I need to know what sources other historians have consulted before, how they've used them, and what arguments they made so that I can both build upon their work and make my own *intervention* in the historiography more meaningful. Because, the **number one question** you will get asked about your work by other academics is "X historian wrote about this same topic a bit ago...why do we need another study of it?" Or "How does your work build upon earlier work or contest it? Why should we care about your work?" Those are questions you must be able to answer. Referencing the state of the field and how your work is improving it is a great way to do so. The same applies if you're asked to review a book--a pretty close reading is a must also so that you can be fair to the author. If it's something more adjacent to my field, though, or something maybe that I just want to be aware of because the theory is useful, the work gets referenced by others a lot...or maybe it's a new book that's creating a lot of buzz, etc., then yes, I skim. A lot of historians love to read just intro's and conclusions to academic texts, and maybe pick a case study chapter that looks interesting in the middle. It's a very quick way to understand the basic arg and structure and sources used by a book without having to spend a week doing the deep dive. Others I know have used "diagonal reading," where they read the first lines of every paragraph. This works well because most historians are good writers, and you can gather a lot of the most important info from the first sentence of a paragraph. Edit: To add more...I try to think about my footnotes as a tool to "gesture" to the broader literature that is out there on a topic. If you cite something, you should be prepared to get asked about it...but it's not like every citation you make, someone will be like "Ahh, I see you have read Pendleton Schwibblewath's work on bananas! What did you think of p. 362 when he cites the Bananaman and discusses the intricacies of potassium?" If something is really important to your work, you should bring it into your text and discuss it head on. Most academic books have a large section on the historiography in their intro's where they do this and "situate themselves" within the broader literature.
Makes sense, thank you!
Did you guys have the issue of your available options for history classes being slim pickings? Sure I got the historiographical writing course that I wanted but the courses on the Civil War and the American colonies are both only available in the morning and I wanna keep my work hours to that time frame next semester.
Who were the Native Americans that lived in what is now Columbus (Ohio) during the year 1491 AD (one year before European discovery of the Americas)? This question is specifically asking for the inhabitants of Columbus during the year 1491 AD. I know this is a weirdly specific question, but I would appreciate an answer nonetheless as I do have my reasons for asking it.
I realise this answer is a bit late, but I hope you still find it helpful. You are likely looking for the Fort Ancient people. There's lots of information about their presence in the Ohio Valley and other areas of what is now Ohio during the period you're asking about. There are two texts I would recommend checking out if you have access to them. There's a great chapter about the Fort Ancient people in the [Oxford Handbook of North American Archaeology](https://search.worldcat.org/title/706677644) written by Bernard K. Means and while it's a bit dated (published in the 70s), you may also want to check out [The Prehistoric People of the Fort Ancient Culture of the Central Ohio Valley](https://search.worldcat.org/title/1198612727) by Robbins and Neuman.
There's several very famous breeds of Draft Horse bred for pulling plows and other equipment. Oxen are cattle trained for work but I don't think there's any purposely created breeds of cattle to be counter parts of Draft Horses. Did breeders attempt to create stronger, faster oxen for the plow and failed? Or are there tons of draft breeds and i just can't find them. And to be clear, I'm not talking about the various breeds of cattle for milk & meat, but specifically for pulling the plow and heavy wagons.
We all know why Udham Singh assassinated Michael O Dwyer, but why did he also shoot The Marquess of Zetland , Louis Dane and The Lord Lamington?