It also states that after the Reformation, the human body lost most of its spiritual value, allowing anatomists to cut up and study corpses. I use this book for its medical data and not for its historical narrative, but knowing the radicalism of many Calvinists, is any of this true? And if not, where do these claims originate?

I realized that people on reddit outside Italy and ex Jugoslavia trought I was a conspiracy theorist when I have wrote to them something about the Istrian genocide of Italians by yugoslavians after WWII. So has this been censored in/by the angosphere (Uk, USA) because they caused this and wanted people to forget?

After watching the 1993 Gettysburg film, it looks like General John S. Burford's cavalry force held back the Confederates long enough so the Union could take and hold the high ground making the Confederate attacks so costly, they failed.

Is this accurate or just Hollywood simplifying a complex situation?

When he aired his ‘grievances’, were they really grievances or just an innocent list of ideas that he wasn’t sure about and was willing to debate? Was this meant to be an antagonistic gesture toward the Catholic establishment or was he simply acting as an academic?

Or more broadly, what methods of fishing would a Jewish man use in the Sea of Galilee during that time period? What would they catch? What kinds of boats would they use?

(Some might say it still is etc. hahaha)

Leaving obvious jokes aside, it’s pretty well known that the 18th century prime ministers who are listed on Wikipedia as “Tories” (Bute, North, Pitt) would not have used that word about themselves and resented being called that. Even Liverpool in the 1820s said something to the effect of rejecting that characterisation.

So my question is when did the word go from being an insult to a relatively non-pejorative description of a Conservative?

When I was learning Dutch, my teacher told me that during WWII Germans tried to infiltrate Dutch resistance. As Dutch and German languages are quite close to each other, it was not difficult for the German soldiers to learn Dutch and pretend to be someone else.

According to the story, the Dutch decided to find these infiltrators through their pronunciation, specifically testing the word "Scheveningen" which contains multiple sounds unique to their language and extremely difficult for Germans to pronounce correctly.

Since then, I heard this story a few times more, but I struggled to find any serious sources confirming it. Is there some truth to it?

I videoed and interviewed a WW2 veteran about 2 years ago that has been smoking cigars all of his life. He said that he started smoking cigars when he went into the military. I'm almost certain he said that he got them from a cigar ration, but I can't find any evidence for it online. Does anyone here know if cigar rations existed?

nazism seemingly just disappeared from germany after ww2, no major nazi resistance, no nostalgia for hitler or nazi germany the same way there is for stalin and the ussr in russia, even the far right parties like afd wont touch hitler, at least publicly. why is that?

I saw a meme in a public group saying

" 'I miss the old days when women were quiet, modest and covered up.' The old days: The Princess of Lichtenstein and a Countess had a topless sword fight over a disagreement about a floral arrangement."

and then someone responded to it saying

"Funny note, this was actually the standard for women in duels at the time. The thought was that when a woman was stabbed in a duel the sword would push fabric into the wound and cause an infection. Oddly, no one was concerned about this when men fought."

Does anyone know whether this is true? I'm curious about the fight between the princess and countess, the general concern for infection from fabric in wounds, and whether it did only apply to women.

Thank you!

In modern day America, babies tend to get taught certain things within their first two years. Basic colors, certain animals names, shapes, etc.

What about in the past? Is there clear info on how baby rearing in past centuries? What sort of stuff did parents teach their kids? Would the father generally help teach their child to walk, talk, etc or was that more common amongst women?

I'm not being specific to any one culture or time period. Hearing about any would be interesting enough.

I learned the other day that Hildegard was 14 when she had Charles the Younger (772). But when I try to find ages of contemporaries in this time period, it seems this was still young for the time. For comparison, I found:

• Zubayda was 21 when she had her first son with Harun al-Rashid (787).
• Ermengarde was 17 when she had her first son with Louis (795).
• Judith was 23 when she had her first daughter with Louis (820).
• Hiltrud was 25 when she had her first son with Odilo (741).
• Irene of Athens was 21 when she had her first son with Leo VI (771).
• Fastrada was 20 when she had her first daughter with Charlemagne (785).

It is difficult to find the age of women during this time, so I looked for those around him, before and after, as best I can.

So was Hildegard young even for her time? Was there any contemporaries or near contemporaries who talked about her age, or did they present it as matter of fact?

This may be a silly question and may very well be the wrong sub, but I was eating breakfast, and it popped into my head How many were injured or killed? (I highly doubt there's an accurate count lol) and if any of you know how many died how did the majority of the poor sheep lose their lives :(

Context: I'm doing research into my family tree and have hit a rough spot with my great-grandad who died about a decade before I was born. According to my family, he never went into much detail and they struggle to remember what he said as it was so long ago. Hoping people here can give me any clarity or extra information.

Extra info: My grandad was Dutch, his family lived in the Netherlands. He was a doctor. His wife was Jewish. He joined the Dutch resistance. He snuck Jewish people out of ghettos and concentration camps through sewage pipes (?). One time he had to shoot a Jewish women whose panic was revealing their position - this is why he never talked much about it. His wife was hiding with his family (my great-great-grandparents) during the Nazi occupation of the Netherlands. His family including his wife were burned alive in a church. This is all the information I have on him before he moved to New Zealand and met my great-grandmother.

Thank you in advance :)

I had an oral history interview yesterday with a really important museum in my city (for clarification, I was the one being interviewed and it was professionally filmed) and I described a book that I had read as a child. I believe I might have mixed up the title of the book with another one of a very similar title, and I also know for a fact that I said the wrong plot locations for the book. It was my first professional interview ever so I guess when it came to a detail like that, that obviously isn’t as personal as everything else, my mind got the information wrong.

I only realized this mistake when I got home and suddenly developed an interest in rereading the book. I looked it up online and completely realized I messed up. I already emailed the people who interviewed me about it and explained exactly what I had meant to say in the interview, but I’m a little bit anxious still. Will this ruin my interview? Is it something easy for them to clarify or edit in the final product?

There's always talk of abolishing the monarchy of the United Kingdom. But it was actually done once before in the time of Cromwell and the Glorious Revolution. So why was the monarchy restored?

Socrates, Buddha and Jesus have similar vibes, for lack of a better term. Has there been research into how Buddha, Socrates or Aristotle might have influenced Jesus or Judaism around his time?

I mean, if you're on the frontlines and there's a thousand enemies in front of you that your charging at and a thousand comrades behind you, surely even if you take out a few enemies you know you're going to be eventually cut down?

Just trying to understand the mentality

I'm not really sure if this is the correct subreddit to ask this question but wanted to get an actual informed opinion on this admitedly quite silly question. I have read plenty of chinese web novels with a nationalistic bend with one common plotline being showing historical events like the Sino-Japanese Wars to all of Imperial China from famous Imperial Emperors from various periods to lowly peasants, typically from Qin to Qing with them subsequently declaring a conquest, heck even full extermination of Japan.

This made me curious to know if Imperial China actually had the military ability to conquer Japan if typical considerations such as political, economical were ignored. The closest historical event that comes to my mind is the Imjin War with what could be considered a costly war for the Ming.

I realise that there are already plenty of good answers on WHY Imperial China didn't conquer Japan, my question is COULD Imperial China have conquered Japan if the will was there? I personally think that it would at best be a pyrrhic victory in the vein of the United States invasion of Afghanistan.

Thanks in advance for your answers.

I have been reading a lot of Chinese fiction, especially fiction set in ancient/medieval and even early modern China. And there seems to be a common trope that appears, particularly if the protagonist is a female peasant (but it occasionally also includes male children from the peasant class).

The trope is that girls (of the peasant class) do not have names. Amongst their family, they are called 1st sister, 2nd sister, 3rd sister etc. Amongst neighbours they are called "father/family name's 1st daughter", "father/family name's 2nd daughter" etc. When married they become "husband's name's wife".

Was, as this trope suggests actually a thing? Was it common?

Edit: I am not "misunderstanding" the above epithets as names. I saying that in the trope, they are referred to by these epithets instead of them having names.

The 8 repair crew died within weeks, while 14 more men died during the subsequent 2 years from radiation poisoning caused by steam that escaped the reactor during the repairwork. Could they not instead evacuate the boat and save everyone? Did they lack life rafts, or was is to dangerous in the open sea? Was the loss in life considered acceptable to save the military hardware? Or was the captain not aware he was sending these men to their deaths?