Simple/Short/Silly History Questions Saturday!

Submitted by AutoModerator t3_10neik9 in history

Welcome to our Simple/Short/Silly history questions Saturday thread!

This thread is for all those history related questions that are too simple, short or a bit too silly to warrant their own post.

So, do you have a question about history and have always been afraid to ask? Well, today is your lucky day. Ask away!

Of course all our regular rules and guidelines still apply and to be just that bit extra clear:

Questions need to be historical in nature. Silly does not mean that your question should be a joke. r/history also has a discord server where you can discuss history with other enthusiasts and experts

54

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

najing_ftw t1_j68fl44 wrote

Was there any precedent for Beatlemania type behavior pre-20th century?

5

AngryBlitzcrankMain t1_j68g3u8 wrote

Fans of composer Franz Liszt showed similar behaviour of hysteria and fan fanaticism in 1840s. Only partially related, but there is also Stendhal syndrom of fainting or hallucinating when experiencing peices of art work (writer Stendhal experienced it when visiting Florence basilica).

7

SteampunkDesperado t1_j692vw7 wrote

On the opposite end of the spectrum, Igor Stravinsky's 1913 ballet "The Rite of Spring" sparked a riot by angry theater goers.

6

GSilky t1_j6erkup wrote

Communication wasn't advanced enough to create that level of mass hysteria. That's why the Beatles, and Elvis, are so monumental, they were the first to really be promoted and marketed the way they were. Other groups at the time could have been the Beatles, they just happened to be in the right place and time, but any number of pop acts were also getting the push.

2

Scruffy725 t1_j68xfli wrote

In WW1 trench warfare, why didn't they just dig trenches toward the enemy trench instead of doing suicidal charges? Surely it would be safer/more effective. Even with things like barbed wire in the way they could just dig under it. So why didn't it work?

5

jrhooo t1_j695b0l wrote

there's many reasons why this wouldn't be practical, but for a start once your trench is within 50 yards of mine, how much further are you planning to dig?

Because anything within 40 yards, I can reliably toss hand grenades into your trench the whole time you're digging.

10

TheGreatOneSea t1_j6968i4 wrote

Tunnels were very much used, generally to put explosives under defenses so the territory could be easily taken after the defenders were killed.

They weren't reliable though, because tunnel collapse was always a major risk, and defense in depth meant the enemy could pull back and make a new line of defense quicker than a massive tunnel could be made.

9

LaoBa t1_j69zz7o wrote

This was actually just what the Russians did in the Brusilov offensive in 1916, where they dug hidden trenches towards the Austro-Hungarian trenches to insure that the soldiers did not have to cross a wide no mans land.

I'm not sure, but maybe one of the reasons why this succeeded was that there was no vigorous patrolling of no mans land by the Austro-Hungarian army. If you detect such trenches, you are warned that an attack is imminent and you can direct artillery towards it.

8

Sgt_Colon t1_j6cg1ix wrote

A significant issue is that trenches weren't singular lines of defence, but rather multiple ones designed with defence in depth as a guiding principle which had massive ramifications.

Gaining the outermost trench wasn't all that difficult, holding it however was a nightmare. The outermost lines were lightly defended with the bulk of the troops stationed on the ones behind that, away from enemy artillery while the front line was still well protected by theirs. This meant if you gain that outer trench line, you wound be facing immediate counterassaults from large units of fresh infantry as well as being under fire by enemy artillery whilst you were still trying to reorganise your units and move your artillery up to defend your line. The enemy also held other high cards such as having direct communication trenches leading to frontline trenches, defences between the first and second lines being designed with counter offense in mind and having clear, stable lines of supply behind their remaining trenches whilst you were stuck with the question of how to lug HMGs, ammunition, wounded and a hundred and one various things through the quicksand like quagmire that was no mans land and get your artillery forward to support you (which given said forward positions were square in that quagmire was a difficult task in the least). Logistically and tactically, you were quite utterly screwed despite your success.

So even if you managed to dig a trench into the enemies outer line (and not have the daylights shelled out of you in the process), you were still massively exposed to counterattack, especially by the Germans who were notorious for quickly and aggressively pushing back, whilst lacking artillery and logistic support.

6

SteampunkDesperado t1_j6937kh wrote

What's the real story of the early Roman calendar? (The one that began in March and ended in December.) They didn't actually disregard two whole months, did they?

5

Thibaudborny t1_j6azco2 wrote

You're suggesting 12 months is a universal standard, when in reality, that only came about later. You can not disregard that which doesn't exist. It is Caesar who reformed the system to be more structured.

1

LateInTheAfternoon t1_j6b00q7 wrote

The pre-Julian Republican calendar (dating back to at least 183 BC) had twelve months; it was not solar like the Julian one (it was lunisolar, like most of the calendars of its time). They are asking about the calendar which preceded that one.

2

GSilky t1_j6er23c wrote

IIRC the Roman calendar before Julian hardly lived up to it's name. It was confusing at best.

1

LateInTheAfternoon t1_j6eum10 wrote

The pre-Julian Republic calendar was an ordinary twelve-month lunisolar calendar, not unlike the ones in Greece and Mesopotamia. And it wasn't any less functional than those. According to tradition that twelve-month calendar went back to the time of king Numa. The weird ten-month calendar, which this question is about, was the one which it replaced.

2

GSilky t1_j6fqf6g wrote

Gotcha, now I'm going down the rabbit hole on this lol

1

cphug184 t1_j6ae019 wrote

If you were an early 1800s agrarian far from urban life, what sort of personal hygiene did you practice? Please cover teeth, bathing, pooping and hair. I’ve read nothing about day to day hygiene.

4

jezreelite t1_j6dxbiy wrote

In the morning, you'd wake up and have a sponge bath using a wash basin and a pitcher. A full bath would likely only be once a week. If you were a poor person, you would probably share the bath water with your family members.

Your hair would likely be washed only once a week and probably with soap. Shampoo was first introduced to Europeans in 1814, but those in rural areas would likely not have had access to it. There were a lot of hair care tonics available, often of dubious benefit, and very wealthy women were known to wash their hair in things like cognac and eggs.

For your teeth, you'd use a toothbrush or a tooth cloth and tooth powder or paste. A tooth cloth would be likely for people in rural areas and their tooth paste or powder would likely be homemade. At this point, the fact that sugar causes cavities was not understood by most, but having bad breath was still a faux pas.

After pooping, you'd probably use a rag, water, newspaper, brown paper, or your hands, unless you happened to be particularly rich. Toilet paper was not made commercially until the 1850s and only the wealthy used it.

7

cphug184 t1_j6fjn6j wrote

Well that was perfect! More advanced than I thought. And glad I didn’t live then. Thank you!

2

Sure-Disaster-4607 t1_j68r41q wrote

Did people have a concept of societal breakdown before/during the Bronze Age collapse? Were they aware of the fact that civilisation was shattering?

3

Larielia t1_j69o5on wrote

I started reading "The Japanese Myths" by Joshua Frydman.

What are some other good books about Japanese mythology?

2

dazzlingupstairz t1_j6bajfo wrote

Can anyone help me out with my post over here?

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/10ntls6/what_proof_is_there_that_john_kellogg_circumcised/

I can't find proof that John Kellogg (of Kellogg's cereal) was an anti-masturbation crusader like his wikipedia page, and occasional r/TIL post says. It seems to be a misreading of the source.

1

bangdazap t1_j6copig wrote

>Like the Christian physiologists and Ellen White, Kellogg believed that the human body at any one time had a finite supply of vital energy or force and that this force contributed to the state of one’s overall health. To waste vital energy through masturbation or excessive sexual activity led to a serious and perhaps permanent decline in one’s health.

​ Brian C Wilson - Dr. John Harvey Kellogg and the Religion of Biologic, ISBN 978-0-253-01455-9, p.45

1

dazzlingupstairz t1_j6cyxj8 wrote

But in my post I give the text.

> # Quacks

>Another trap set is called an "Anatomical Museum." The anatomical part of the exhibition consists chiefly of models and figures calculated to excite the passions to the highest pitch. At stated intervals the proprietor, who is always a "doctor," and by preference a German, delivers lectures on the effects of masturbation, in which he resorts to every device to excite the fears and exaggerate the symptoms of his hearers, who are mostly young men and boys. Thus he prepares his victim, and when he once gets him within his clutches, he does not let him go until he has robbed him of his last dollar.

And argue he's basically just doing a lampoon. He literally says ...lectures on the effects of masturbation, in which he resorts to every device to excite the fears and exaggerate the symptoms of his hearers, who are mostly young men and boys. Thus he prepares his victim, and when he once gets him within his clutches, he does not let him go until he has robbed him of his last dollar.

The citation source for your quote is this. > 59. “Degeneration of the Anglo Saxon Race,” Modern Medicine 10, no. 2 (1901): 44.

And I can't find anything in there about masturbation.

https://i.imgur.com/h5kUD5g.png

1

MadDany94 t1_j6c03ia wrote

Can i have names of historical figures that were brought down because they were feared to be too strong and competent? Kinda like Napoleon .

1

GSilky t1_j6eqpqf wrote

How do you mean? Napoleon was seen as a dangerous and destabilizing influence that was causing a lot of trouble for Britain through his blockade, there were major geopolitical reasons to work at removing him from power, jealousy wasn't on the list.

5

Gerasans t1_j6focs3 wrote

Would humanity still be in the bronze age if the tin would be widely available?

1

Thibaudborny t1_j6hdn4d wrote

Probably not, why makes you think that? Bronze is indeed better than iron, but consider that the differences relate to usage/application. You can't, say, build skyscrapers with bronze, rather you'd need steel alloys for that. Similarly, there is a reason weapons are steel and statues are bronze. So sooner or later you'll hit a bottleneck in terms of usage, making it very unlikely we'd stick around with bronze forever.

3

Gerasans t1_j6ibqyb wrote

I just read that one of the main reasons why humans switched from bronze to iron is that iron ores are widely available, so after we could not made bronze - we need to replace it. What if we wouldn't have needs to replace it?

Also there were no needs to build skyscrapers in middle ages and ancient times.

2

Thibaudborny t1_j6if4ij wrote

You are correct, but you said 'would we still be in the bronze age', that implies society would've halted at bronze. In any case, the point remains: different alloys serve different purposes. So, assume the easier availability of bronze was a thing, at some point society would reach a point where the ends were no longer met by it. The reasons could be various, but it is hard to imagine human ingenuity would just stop innovating. Consider martial purposes, steel is far better than bronze, assume iron was not relied on that much, the chances of discovering steel are quite likely & and subsequently, so would the urge be to apply it. Hence, my point is that if more availability was around it would plausibly allow the usage of bronze to stick around longer, that is until a superior alloy (like steel) was discovered. No warrior in his right mind is going to choose bronze over steel.

5

Refrigerator_Either t1_j6lgbi0 wrote

Basically, how is this era of rule from Ming dynasty relevant today? And what about the opium use? Yeah, mainly Im curious in similarities, between the opiate thing we have going in America, and how it went back in the Ming or Qing dynasty eras? How do they correlate?

1

bren_gund t1_j6mpd4e wrote

I was wondering if anyone has good resources for the study of the individual German states before and after German Unification. I especially would like information regarding how the states view each other and the stereotypes that come with them. I originally got interested in this topic when reading, "Storm of Steel" by Ernst Yünger. He specifically refers to the stereotypes of other Germans from different States. As an young country as of 1914 I would imagine each of the States had heavy individualism from the others. Open to discussion and specific sources. I would have made this it's own post but it was removed when I tried. Thanks.

1