I'm writing an assignment in school and would like some explanations on STASI along with relevant sources as my teacher expects me to cite where i found my information from.

Explain 3 key differences between STASI and SÄPO (Swedish intelligence agency, this is what the assignment says but the comparison can be made to any modern intelligence agency) I believe the teacher is talking about persecution and murder conducted by STASI

How was it possible for STASI to deploy so many agents to various countries around Europe? How can an organisation get such a large influence in a country? Why did so many cooperate with them?

What are some good books about mediaval Denmark and Norway?

Hi I'm planning to join a student union and need a nickname to be addressed with. Do you know of any historical figures that are 1) male 2) interesting 3) and have a rather short concise name? Something like "Pericles" or "Caesar" would be great... Thanks in advance for your suggestions!

Need a good introductory book on the history/theology of the Russian Orthodox Church. Any suggestions?

How bout Zenon, the father of stoicism?

[removed]

did an atom bomb once explode during construction? or has that never happened

Maybe this is more of a literary question, but who wrote that history of mankind is in repeating cycles, and the cycle begins with slavery and ends with slavery? I seem to think Marx or Hegel but I can't dig it up. edit: maybe I'm thinking of Alexander Fraser Tytler?

What research methods did Herodotus use?

Herodotus' main goal was to collect knowledge through inquiry (ἱστορία, historia) . He didn't always have the means to really examine it, though he would sometimes demonstrate a preference when given more than one option. Some of this would come from works written by others before him, local knowledge (e.g. "the people of this specific place say..."), common knowledge (e.g. "the Greeks say..."), speaking with other people he considered to be holders of knowledge (e.g. priestly class), and access to people who either lived during/through events or knew those who did. There's not always a clear indication of why he chose to discuss certain things and why he leaves some things out (sometimes painfully so), but sometimes those alternatives survive through other sources and he does occassionally note that something is already known in an essentially "so why would I bother to tell you?" sort of way.

While it has become less popular to do so, there were attempts in modern history (and some in antiquity) to dismiss what he did because of a lack of critical evaluation, but considering what was available to him, when he wrote it, and the scope of the writing it's a monumental and greatly important work.

An entire bomb? I don't think so. Unplanned nuclear reactions, yes. I just saw some YouTube shorts about the "demon core" that killed two scientists in separate incidents in 1945 and 1946.

My understanding is that Marx is saying history begins with communism and ends with communism, so probably not him!

Where can I find primary and secondary sources on Catherine the 2 of Russia, I have a project where I put on a wig and do an ad campaign as to why they should vote for me(her) but I need to do a bibliography with 5 primary and 5 second sources and I have no idea where to look for info on her. The assignment says no textbooks, encyclopedias, videos or websites. Only writings from the time. I don't know about you but I sure don't know a lot of Russian literature from the 1700s

So in general when starting off an assignment that you know nothing about, start first by looking at what those who do know have said. Go to your school library, or city library, or even a local university library if you're not yet at university, and search to see what's available -- feel comfortable asking one of the librarians for help if you don't know how to do that.

You can also use things like Wikipedia, many pages on there have the bibliography broken down into primary and secondary sources.

But it is good to find something written recently, it will give you the best insight into the current field, what academics are saying about it. You want it to be a book by an academic too. Things like "Published by University of X Press" are a good sign, but when in doubt you can google the publisher and the author and see if they're legit or not.

Within that they'll either discuss primary evidence directly "in a letter written to X, Y wrote that.." that letter is a piece of primary evidence. See if you can find it and study it directly, or you can use that historians translation -- just make sure you credit them. A lot of stuff will be translated already in an area like that, but yes it can be an issue for other fields. So if you do plan on sticking around this topic, you're going to want to start learning the necessary languages.

You can also just google and see what primary sources are mentioned by others online. Not good things to cite, but can lead you towards something helpful.

[removed]

How did they weigh things in the Middle Ages? And what measuring system did they use?

Specifically in Europe

There were many competing measurement systems, at least one per country. Literally look up "pound" in Wikipedia and see the 4 systems used in England. After a while, there were conversions between the most-used systems and rules of thumb a out which system was best for which industry.

Generally, I believe they worked the same way the old standard Kilogram worked--there was one or a small number of reference units--this physical object is exactly one pound/mark/whatever. Standard weight sets were made using simple scales and comparing to the reference unit. And then the weights that merchants would use were made the same way, compared to standard sets (you don't want to handle the reference weight too much). Ideally, any two merchants could pull out a 1-ounce weight and they should balance out in a scale. And they largely did (though dishonest merchants might have a lighter set that just looked like a standard set to cheat people with. The Sheriff might compare weights, too, and then you might have to explain to the man with the keys to your jail cell why yours were so different....)

[ETA: for heavier objects you'd see scales with some mechanical advantage, but of a set amount. A "steel yard balance" is a good example. They were still balances--east to observe, hard to cheat, easy to replicate, as long as the weights were reliable]

Also remember that money was generally a set amount of precious metal. A silver penny contained X amount of silver and should weigh a set amount (ignoring clipping and devaluation). So, a payment could be literally weighed. But, it was still the same simple scales using known weights.

[removed]

Did the subjects just have to 1) take their word for it, 2) have no choice in the matter, or 3) not care because they couldn't do anything about it when some claimant to a throne declared the previous kind dead with no proof of said death when that king was away at war or somewhere?

Most of the time securing the body of a dead monarch was of the utmost importance to confer legitimacy on the succeeding monarch, but there were scenarios when a monarch disappeared during a battle or was taken into captivity and never seen again.

For one example, the Roman Emperor, Valerian, was taken captive after the Battle of Edessa and disappeared into Persian captivity, never to be seen alive again. The same thing happened a little less than a thousand years later when Baudouin IX, count of Flanders and Hainaut and Latin emperor of Constantinople, was captured by the Bulgarians after the Battle of Adrianople in 1205 and disappeared into Bulgarian captivity, never to be seen alive again.

In both cases, the result was panic and confusion. Valerian's capture reignited the Crisis of the Third Century and caused the temporary breakup of the Roman Empire. Baudouin, on the other hand, was quickly replaced as emperor by his brother, Henri, while his young daughter, Jehanne, became countess of Flanders and Hainaut, though her rights were often challenged as there was more doubt that her father was actually dead. In 1225, a Burgundian serf named Bertrand took advantage of the confusion to claim that he was actually Baudouin and became involved in revolts of nobility and peasants alike against Jehanne. He was, however, eventually unmasked as an imposter by Jehanne's cousin, Louis VIII of France, and executed.

Earlier in history, even though there was a body, there were rumors that Roman emperor Nero wasn't actually dead and would return one day. There were no less than three Nero imposters, even as late as the 5th century.

More famously, the lack of a body allowed Perkin Warbeck to masquerade as Richard of Shrewsbury and earlier, during the Third Crusade, John of England tried to take advantage of his brother Richard's long disappearance to seize the throne, but he achieved little support and Richard later turned up as a prisoner in Germany.

Did peasants or countrymen knew they were called peasants or countrymen? Would they refer to their areas (villages, neighbourhoods etc.) and the people living in them as something? Doing research for my fiction novel, trying to be as historically accurate as possible.

Can you be clearer? What period are you referring to? What do you mean by "peasants or countrymen". Do you mean: do peasants understood their status as "non city folk"?

do the know that they are labelled as ‘peasants’ or ‘countrymen’

When and where? 1788 France is very different from 15 AD Rome.

But in general... yeah. Why wouldn't they? It's just a word. Help me here, I'm not really sure I understand your question. Do they know that they are called by a specific word? Is that it?

yeah, if they knew they were called a specific word, or term, or would they call themselves a specific word or term. Also, I was talking about Medieval Europe, sorry.

Okay. Yeah they know. Peasant is not an insult, it's a neutral descriptor. And they know it exist because they know that even if they represent the vast majority of the population, there are people that do not live like them. Even if rural community are relatively isolated (compared to a town) they're not completely cut off from the world (the stereotype of the village man who never saw anyone that wasn't from his village is nonsense). They pay taxes to their lord and/or the king, that means a tax collector (and the lord itself). Their priest is educated in a neighboring city and rarely from the village itself. They sell their products to a market town where they meet people from all other... they are in contact with the wider world.

So yes they use the term or local equivalent... when talking of themselves in relation to other groups. "We, peasants, are not like you city folk", that kind of things. Otherwise if they have to use a term they use the name of their village ("we are the people of St Johnston up Avon" or whatever). Just like if you live in a city nowadays you're more likely to say "I'm from Manchester" rather than "I'm a city dweller" unless you have to specify in context.

There are the following reports about two kings of antiquity raping their female subjects:

The Epic of Gilgamesh

Tablet I, column ii, lines 14 - 17

[Yet Gilga]mesh [is the shepherd] of Uruk, the enc[losure].

He is [our shepherd], [strong, handsome, and wise].

[Gilgamesh] leaves no [virgin to her lover],

The daughter of a war[rior, the chosen of a noble]!

Text in the pyramid of Unas

Utterance 317 §510cd

Unas is the lord of semen.

He takes women away from their husbands to the location

of his preference whenever he wishes to.

How much historical truth is here?

A French or Anglo-Norman noble referring to peasants might call them villeins. Though villein tended to be specific to serfs (rather than free peasants), most peasants in France, the Holy Roman Empire, Italy, northern Iberia, and post-1066 England were serfs.

[removed]

Does anybody know if Holger Eckhertz's book, D-Day Through German Eyes has ever been properly vetted? Has the Bundesarchiv acknowledged either Eckhertz or his father? I know that some folks at r/AskHistory have commented about this book, but has anything been resolved?

Bertram was a brave man!

The thing about the Epic of Gilgamesh is that it's arguably the oldest extant example of a tale that's very loosely based on a true story; Gilgamesh is generally agreed to have been a historical king of the Sumerian city-state of Uruk... but anything beyond that basic fact is unknown.

While little is really known of the historical Gilgamesh, surviving Mesopotamian law codes such as the Code of Ur-Nammu, Laws of Eshnunna, and Code of Hammurabi don't support the idea of any actual kings having the legal right to rape their female subjects. While rape of women in these law codes was often treated as a property crime against a woman's father or husband (or owner if she was a slave), it was nonetheless a crime.

The text about the pharaoh Unas is, however, another ball of wax. Its context is a pyramid text honoring Unas as a living incarnation of the crocodile-headed fertility god, Sobek. So, we probably should be hesitant to take that passage literally. Unlike with the Mesopotamians, however, we can't look at any actual law codes, because no ancient Egyptian law code has survived.

[deleted]

[removed]

Help with US history.
What is the best book to go from the first European man put a foot into America to 2000?
I understand that maybe there isn't one book for all. So maybe suggest me a title and the relative period.
I prefer there also is the audiobook.
Also some documentaries.

I am not a student, I am just a European wanting to know more.

What are the differences between a 16th Century Galleon, and an 18th Century Ship of the Line?

What was the average monthly salary in Austria (more specifically Vienna) in Mid 1938?

Where can I find free primary sources related to Latinx and/or Chicano history?

Besides the obvious, I assume?

The Galleon would generally have had around 38 guns as a main battery, with more, generally smaller guns, if it was being used as a warship. The additional weight needed for war could cause problems, though, like the extra weight causing ships to partially fill the bottom decks with water; the end result was clunky, if not outright dangerous. Unsurprisingly, they also tended to be quite slow given their bulk, which caused serious problems for the Spanish Armada during its infamous attack on England.

Dedicated warships would come to be double-planked in the 17th Century, making the hull more resistant to guns, and the rigging was also improved. If we're going even further to the 18th, and also going all out by comparing Galleons like the Triumph (roughly the same kind of class used by Francis Drake,) with the Océan class (probably the most advanced class of its century,) we get:

1. A tonnage of 1000 for the galleon against 2750 of the warship.
2. 124–136 heavier guns against a roughly 1/3 of lighter for the galleon.
3. The 10 knots of the warship against the 8 knots of the non-war prepared Golden Hind.
4. Such a difference in sailing characteristics that weather which would sink a war galleon could be at least survived by the Océan class.

Suffice to say, a fight between the two would be quite the massacre.

Aside from Alexander's successor states, did Macedonian phalanx catch on in other Greek colonies or just somewhere else in general? Or did many attempt it and fail for some reason, preferring the traditional Hoplite or their older ways instead?

What color primer did Germany use before painting the Stahlhelm during WW2?

I'm trying to paint a scale model of a WW2 German soldier and want to give the helmet a weathered look by chipping the helmet so it shows the primer underneath the top layer of paint.

Google tells me that German vehicles were primed using Red Oxide primer. Was this also the case with Stahlhelms? If not, are there any records of the color of the primer they used?

How did the colonies react to the English Civil War?

Actually I did mean the obvious stuff. I am not good at eyeballing changes in a ship's lines, and the Wikipedia is rather vague on the evolution. Thank you for your consideration.

Describe a time period in history that you wish you could visit. Why did you chose that era?

It's the difference between a 1920s produce truck and a modern diesel delivery truck. Bigger, more capable, many incremental improvements in all systems, optimized for wartime, but no major obvious changes.

Some of those incremental improvements would be things like double-planking, copper bottoms (arguably not incremental), larger gun decks, bigger guns, framing to reduce hogging, better powder handling, etc. But a ship of the line was recognizably just a later member of the galleon type.

They acted according to the majority of settlers their allegiances. Those colonies who were populated by for example puritan emigrees sided with parliament, whereas crown colonies typically sided with the king. Their was some limited fighting but overall the colonies were pro-Parliament. The last rebellious islands in the Caribean were forced in line by Cromwell by 1652.

WWII Question: I’m writing a historical-fiction story and I’m trying to set it in a town during WW2. I’m looking for a town or area in France that was under occupation from Germany, liberated by the Allies for at least a short time, then retaken by Germany (even if only briefly).

If I can’t find a setting like that I’ll have to place the story in Luxembourg or Belgium during the battle of the bulge or something :/

Hey all, is there an updated version of the Histomap? Or any other huge infographic like it?

I really like the idea of more or less exhaustive infographics spanning lots of history (like the evolution one) and I'm thinking about buying one or trying to commit some of it to memory.

But I'm not really a fan of the fact that it's damn near 100 years old and has an accordingly narrow scope

The first city that took metallurgy from "small hand tools and ornaments" to "more or less mass produced weapons or trade goods."

Idk if it actually happened that way anywhere, but I think it'd be cool to live in the first "city of metal." Worship the god of metal. Metal fountains in the square. Metal cups at taverns. And of course soldiers with larger metal weapons and armor.

This is assuming perfect fantasy circumstances like not dying of tuberculosis and getting to insert myself into the revolution as it happens with my time traveler knowledge

Does science just come in and out of fashion in history? How can great ideas just get scrapped?

Historically we had some seriously cool discoveries that just kinda got washed over. We had batteries and understanding of electric we had sewage and baths with Romans. We has things like early aviation theories and Chinese lanterns gun powder fireworks . I know c sections supposedly go back further than the 1200s and antibiotics.Traces of antibiotics were found in human skeletons from ancient times dating back to 350 – 550 CE and I've seen science articles claim cavemen did amputations and their subjects survived. Using milk of poppy for pain relief

Obviously outstanding engineering feats meant there was outstanding understanding of maths and architecture. and space. And yet it was all ignored for a long time

But there's just this huge period recently (or relatively recently 1700s onwards where all these old things were brought back and rediscovered. Eg sourcing plants for antibiotic properties. Or reinventing batteries bringing back plumbing as opposed to passing in a bucket etc

Even modern times sort of did this. The first ever invented car was electric. Then they got scrapped for unleaded and diesel engines and now its back to electric cars.

Oh goodness so many I want to visit...but for practical reasons wouldn't especially being a woman 🤣

Not sure if it's the same but in Britian we have the class system and everyone knows what class they are in . We know the terms people use for use for us too. So I would assume yes people historically were the same

Simple answer: technology does not exist in a vacuum. It's not a civilization-like path towards progress. Technologies exist to solve a problem. If the problem doesn't exist (or isn't perceived as existing)... then why would you invest a lot of money to solve something that is not there? That's why for millennia we've had scientific knowledge of things and did nothing with it, because it was useless as far as people were concerned. If there is no incentive, there is no technological development.

I'm unfamiliar with a lot of examples you give but I know two well: Roman steam engines and ball bearing. Romans knew those existed... and only used them in very specific circumstances. There were no proto roman car or trains. They just thought it was neat and used it for doors and statues. Because they had no use for it, those were very inefficient products and they did not perceive their use outside of those circumstances.

Same thing with early electric cars... they worked. But were way more expansive and way less useful than oil based cars. So when oil came around... they all switched. Why would you invest a lot of money into perfecting something when there's a way better solution around the corner.

I would also say "I've seen science articles claim cavemen did amputations and their subjects survived", we never lost that. Amputations wasn't a death sentence, it was extremely risky but for centuries humanity developed skills to make it less lethal. It's not like prehistoric societies had a 100% survival rate and that a few millennia later we had only 2% survival rate.

Which lead me to an observation. A lot of your example make it seems that we had wonderful things we later forgot. While there are historical example of that (it took centuries for Europe to develop dome again in architecture after the fall of the Roman Empire, or how we invented closed toilet five times and each time it didn't take)... the example you quote are out of context and/or widely exaggerated. To go back to Roman steam engines... they had something using that principle but it's not like they had a research program looking into steamboats.

Again in short, no science doesn't come and go. It's just that if there is no incentive to develop something, just having the scientific knowledge of something does not lead to discoveries.

What were some 50 bmg sniper rifles made in/before 1932, I have to do this for a school project, thanks.

ye but would they know any specific words that ehy were called?

Mortain might be suitable. Part of German occupied France until 3rd august 1944, recaptured during the 7th-13th during Operation Lüttich, then finally in Allied control.

Depends on various things, 1 Location 2. Time peroid and 3. The class using them. I could give you some ideas of terms used for Britian and Ireland that were around queen victorias time
Some slang by lowerclass would include Brickies (brick layer ) Quakers (worked soup kitchens in irish famine ) (Mutton Shunter) policeman Docker (dock worker) THREE-PENNY UPRIGHT ( a prositute ) Bit Faker (someone who made fake coins ) Bludger (violent criminal) Didikko (person of travelling community) Dipper (Pickpocket) Don (leader or distinguised person ) Flash (something or someone Posh eg flash house) Spike Workhouse , landsharks bloodsuckers(landlords) gentry (gentleman

Upperclass and middle being better educated would be less likely to use slang, When I look at letters written at the time about the famine for example the terms used are straightforward compared to lowerclass slang but terms I've seen are things like the labouring men, The middle men (for landlords) Tendry (tennants)
"It would be impossible adequately to describe the privations which they [the Irish labourer and his family] habitually and silently endure ..."

I think if your looking for earlier good examples of how things were written earlier would be to read a few chapters from books of that era your interested in that focus on class division eg poldark (set in early 18th century) or something like homers oddessy if you want ancient greece, shakespere if you want 1600s etc

[removed]

wow, this is extremely detailed, I will try to incorporate these aspects into my writing!

[removed]

Who cleaned up after WW1 and WWII? Especially the immediate aftermath. Was it left to the locals or did governments?

I don't know of any that would fit the bill before 1932. There was a German 13 mm anti-tank rifle introduced in 1918, but it wasn't fitted with a scope and was not suitable for sniping in any case (due to being too heavy and bulky).

If I recall correctly, the US experimented with a .50 anti-tank rifle, but decided that the M2 heavy machine gun (also in .50 BMG) would fill that role better.

I know German POW were enlisted to clear minefields after WWII, both naval and on land. Some fortified buildings like U-boat pens resisted demolition and were left as they were.

Some land on the WWI western front was so severely destroyed that it still hasn't been returned to agricultural use

Everyone pitched in. Many people themselves suffered property destruction, or at the very least had friends or family that did. Governments planned initiatives to clean up war debris, but on a smaller scale locals would've also done their fair bit of cleaning for themselves or those around them in order to rebuild their homes and livelihoods.

In fact, people to this day are STILL cleaning up from WWI and WWII. There are many areas on the Eastern and Western fronts (of both World War I and World War II) where the Iron Harvesr happens — the1 recollection of unexploded war munitions. Every year European farmers plough the ground and unearth new ones.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_harvest

[removed]

[deleted]

in ancient or feudal societies, were people on the bottom of the class structure able to move up naturally or socially or were they confined to whatever they were?

Wow,still? That’s crazy

It’s so crazy, such a large scale conflict. I’m sure there is still so much buried that we will never find

It depends on where and especially when. Traditionally not really because a feudal society implies a somewhat rigid hierarchy.

But that doesn't mean you can't climb up, what change is how much you can climb: In Western Europe most people were serfs in the Middle Ages, meaning they were legally bound to the ground. The literally were forbidden from leaving their village (this was true in Russia up until the late 19th century by the way). Now depending on when and where you are it was absolutely possible to leave serfdom (usually buying your freedom). You will after that be a freeman who would usually rent your land. That's a step up. So there is definitely room for progress here.

What is important to understand is that there a feudal society is not simply "lords rule over peasants, and that's it". There is an internal hierarchy that you could climb: in a village you had poor serfs, you had free men tenant, you had even somewhat rich farmers. In cities you had citizen/burghers, people with specific rights (economic and political) in the city (that's usually the merchants and tradesmen) who were above the people simply living here.

So yeah, you have a complex social structure which you can absolutely climb with luck, connection, marriage, so on. The one barrier that is usually impossible to cross is the nobility: the nobles rule, they are on the top of the pyramid. And if you're not a noble, you're not getting in. In the "classic" feudal system, you cannot cross that. You have a whole internal hierarchy that goes relatively up, but it stops short of actual political power. This changes later, in later centuries during the modern period (15-18th century) in France specifically you could buy a noble title, but it was incredibly expensive.

So could you rise up? Usually no. If you could it was very local. The main thing people could hope for was no longer being serfs. For people in town trying to get into the craftsmen class. So social climbing, but far from rags to riches.

thanks!! this was just the answer i was looking for

There's also still a lot of unexploded bombs around. It's not that unusual to find bombs during excavation works in Germany, here in Düsseldorf you get a small scale evacuation every few month because someone dug up a bomb and it has to be defused.

[removed]

Wow. I’m all of a sudden so curious about the aftermath. Did they teach you about what I imagine was confusion and chaos in the immediate period after the end of the war?

To be honest, it was not a particular focus in school here in Germany. For obvious reasons the approach is more like in the 30s we let the nazis seize power and here is why we won't fucking let that happen again... you learn a bit about the Trümmerfrauen, literally 'rubble women' - a lot of the clean up work was done by women because a lot of the men were dead, injured or POWs. And you learn a bit about the flight from the formerly German Eastern territories, with stuff like the sinking of the Wilhelm Gustloff. I'm not even sure if the latter is still considered that relevant in school curricula these days, that may well have been viewed as more topical when therewas still a GDR and a cold war going on. I'm curious how this is taught in other European countries. Pretty sure you have a different perspective if you didn't start the whole bloody war. Britain, for example, would have had a lot of clean up to do as well fro the Bitz ad other German bombing campaigns. (And there must be the same probes with WW2 bombs still being found on costruction sites) And given how long rationing had to continue after the war, Icould well imagine that the whe postwar reconstruction is still a topic of history classes.

Wow, awesome response. Thanks for the perspective!

Are you an urban peasant? Maybe we will be described as that in the future, who knows