History questions? Fire away!

I'm sure there probably is... something about The German contest in 1813 setting the ground work for something or other... This is what you get for asking a question in what probably amounts to my 2 weakest centuries :p

I promise, in precisely one year from now, I will be able to answer this question fully... but for now, you're on your own :p

Well, a discussion is way better than you just pwning me with your walls of text. I may take a while though, I haven't really unpacked my books (recently moved) and finding the exact source can be tough.

Your answer on the second question was good. If you want to know more about what happened on the French side on Napoleon's invasion I'd suggest reading Adam Zamoyski's "1812 Napoleon's fatal march on Moscow". Pretty much covers everything.
 
Been sitting and thinking over Werner's question.

The only thing I can possibly think of is that he was perhaps referring to the notion that Napoleon uniting the German states under the Confederation of the Rhine somehow...proposed(?) the possibility that unification under one banner was at least achievable by a strong German leader with a means, power, and drive comparable to Napoleon.

It's a little weak, but that's the best I could come up with. =|
 
Well, a discussion is way better than you just pwning me with your walls of text. I may take a while though, I haven't really unpacked my books (recently moved) and finding the exact source can be tough.

Your answer on the second question was good. If you want to know more about what happened on the French side on Napoleon's invasion I'd suggest reading Adam Zamoyski's "1812 Napoleon's fatal march on Moscow". Pretty much covers everything.


Yeah, I'd be interested in figuring that out as well... I'm looking forward to hearing about it. Perhaps YOU can make a blog-post-wall-o-text to counter mine :p

As for the second question, yeah, I've studied 20th century Russia (especially the early part) quite a bit, so I know something about that, at least. I might check that book out; like I say, I've got a lot of courses that will involve napoleon this year, so it might just crop up on its own.
 
Who was the ruler that sent Russia into a sort of "mid-evil" time, where they didn't really advance in technology, religion, ect...? And then what ruler came up, went to Europe and brought Russia into the "light", I learned the 2nd part in school last year but I had forgotten.
 
Wow. This is really interesting stuff Dreadmaker. Thanks for all the information! If I somehow come up with a good history question, I'll be sure to ask!
 
Who was the ruler that sent Russia into a sort of "mid-evil" time, where they didn't really advance in technology, religion, ect...? And then what ruler came up, went to Europe and brought Russia into the "light", I learned the 2nd part in school last year but I had forgotten.


Well, that's a little complicated. It wasn't really a single Russian ruler that did it, but rather the changing environment AROUND Russia.

Back in the 10th century or so, Russia was just beginning to be united by the oh so familiar Vlad the Impaler. I'll simplify that bit, and just say that eventually, a civilzation called Kievian 'Rus was formed, with it's center in (surprise) Kiev. It was a particularly significant proto-Russian state.

Russia, in the middle ages, was actually considered to be more advanced than europe in a lot of fields. They had a better overall education, they had a greater literacy rate on average. They were a trade nation, and they had particularly strong trade ties with the Byzantine Empire. They traded primarily along the Volga River, and were actually relatively stable (except for a minor incursion by the Mongols, funny enough).

Until 1453. What happens in 1453? Constantinople, the center of the Byzantine empire, falls to the Ottoman Turks. Russia and them shared a religion (Eastern Orthodox Christianity), but the Ottomans were Islamic. The trade dried up, and Russia fell into what could easily be viewed as a massive recession.

Fast forward 450 years and we're at the turn of the 20th century. in 1861, as previously mentioned, Russia is still using a medieval form of government. However, as soon as the Bolsheviks took over (and certainly before, as well) there was a big push for modernization. Lenin, the first leader of the Bolsheviks (until 1924) pushed for it, but it was his successor that REALLY put the pedal to the metal in terms of modernization: Josef Stalin.


Stalin did a lot of bad stuff... like killing 22 million Russian peasants (some scale: almost 4 times as many people as the generally accepted estimates of the holocaust). However, in the process, he forced Russia into the industrial period, and really set the stage for them to be a world power today.

Now, I did omit things... a lot of things, in fact, because your question is sorta asking about the entire history of Russia :p However, I hope I answered it, and if you'd like more specifics, we can go into that.

EDIT: For the record, by the way, the leader that you're probably referring to is Peter the Great; he certainly did help the push for Russian modernization. He was the one who traveled to Europe (the first Russian leader since 1075 to do so), and brought back information about how sophisticated and excellent European society was (in his eyes, at least. This is a man who didn't know how to use a napkin before coming to Europe; we have written documentation proving it). He was really the first contact that Europe and Russia had in about 700 years.

Also:

Wow. This is really interesting stuff Dreadmaker. Thanks for all the information! If I somehow come up with a good history question, I'll be sure to ask!


Thanks very much; don't hesitate to do so. I'm glad you're enjoying it :)
 
Last edited:
Ok, that makes sense.

Attila the Hun. What does Hun mean. And what makes him such a huge role in Eastern History? I know he attacked a bunch of places in China, but what really separates him from the other people we know for murdering people?
 
Carmine: I'm not really sure how much detail you'd like there, but because this post is already gargantuan, I'll boil to down to 2 words: siege equipment. Hannibal, for all his military prowess, failed to account for siege, and brought not a single piece of artillery with him over the Alps (which would have been logistically difficult anyhow). Romans weren't all that great as siege either, but they DID bring some stuff along when they went for the counter attack. Essentially, Hannibal was left to sit at the gates of Rome with nothing to do but wait, while Rome went and wrecked what he had in Iberia. I CAN go into more detail, but if that answers the question, we can leave it there.

Yeah that pretty much answers it, that would be a huge disadvantage for Hannibal.
 
Great answer again DreadMaker.

Next Question: Who was Atilla the Hun? I have heard many vicious and cruel things about him, but never really got to reading about him.
 
Could one accurately compare America's dependency on Oil from the Middle East to Early Rome's dependency on Egyptian wheat?
 
hmmm i want you to tell me everything you know about Norse mythology

i dont care if you get wall-of-texty

i find Loki interesting so you can focus on him

or any god for that matter
 
Alright, quick update:

I apologize for not answering these questions quickly here; a friend came over unexpectedly yesterday, and we ended up staying up to disgusting hours in the morning, talking, just hanging out, and not thinking about history. I just got back and I'm completely tired, so it may be tomorrow for the answers. Sorry :(

But, rest assured, I've seen all the new questions, and I'm excited to answer them; be patient!
 
Attila the Hun. What does Hun mean. And what makes him such a huge role in Eastern History? I know he attacked a bunch of places in China, but what really separates him from the other people we know for murdering people?

Next Question: Who was Atilla the Hun? I have heard many vicious and cruel things about him, but never really got to reading about him.


I love you guys... cutting my work in half like that ;)


Alright, first, the quick part. BokkChoi, 'Hun' isn't a title; it's the name of a particular tribe of people.


Now, the long part. The first thing to note when we talk about the Huns is that we don't know anything about them for sure. All accounts we have of them are from writers in Rome; Rome, of course, viewed themselves as entirely superior in culture and in dignity to any of the so called 'barbarians', and so there is a lot of opportunity for bias to sneak in here. They report a largely uncivilized society, but that's quite typical of Roman writers. Needless to say, everything we know has a lot of potential to be inaccurate.


However, we do think we know some stuff. Namely, that they appeared in Europe around the 4th century AD. We actually don't know a lot of details about where they came from (although it is assumed that they were from an area just north of China) because those European writers that are basically our only source of information didn't see them until, well, they were in Europe. They were, similar to the Mongols, a nomadic people, and their primary form of combat was horse archers.

Bit of a sidenote: It really does seem like if you want to put together an incredibly effective army in the pre-industrial period, the correct way to do it is to get lots of horse archers. Seems ranged attacks + mobility = something very difficult to beat. So, it seems that 'kiting' works in the real world too.


The Huns, prior to Attila, didn't really have any one ruler; they simply had a group of nobles that would convene on particular matters. Their government style was almost casual, really, but if you wanted a modern comparison, the closest you would get would be an oligarchy.


Now, the more interesting question: why do we care about the Huns as especially interesting people when there are so many other murderers around?

Because they were the best of the best in their time period. Evidence? Well, they weren't the sole cause of the fall of the Roman empire, but they were a big contributing factor. It actually answers a pretty significant question about why we know Attila and the Huns in general today; the really messed up Rome, and they were a significant topic of discussion amongst the roman historians.


Here's the story: The emperor of Rome's sister has a problem. She's being forced to marry a Roman senator against her will, and she really doesn't want to. She knows about Attila, and about the Huns (from her friendship with a particular roman general who was exiled with them for a while), and so she sends Attila a plea for help, attaching the wedding ring as proof. Now, what SHE wanted is for him to come and kill the senator so she'd be off the hook. Simple, easy thought, right?

What ACTUALLY happened is that Attila saw the ring and took it as a marriage proposal to HIM. He then sent a letter to Rome requesting half of the Western empire as a dowry. Now, we all can recognize that that isn't something Rome was willing to do, so he ended up coming down into the Italian Peninsula (not as far as Rome, however) and really roughing it up. Rape, Pillage, mass murder, you name it. However, a particular roman general fought well enough that it discouraged him, and the Huns left.

He hadn't forgotten though. 2 years later, back he came. Same story. He eventually got repelled before hitting Rome, but he still had caused his damage. This was all done in 452, or so, which is relatively close to the 'fall' of the Western Empire in 476. He wasn't the sole cause, as I said earlier, but he certainly helped to destabilize the place.


2 more quick things: How did he die? It wasn't in battle. Rumor has it that after he left Rome the second time, he planned to go and nail Constantinople. However, he stopped off to get married first (apparently having forgotten his supposed Roman wife). At his reception party, something happened, and we can't be too sure of what, but in any case, he died. There are two major theories: Firstly, that he got incredibly drunk, and choked to death, or, Secondly, that he got incredibly drunk, and died of alcohol poisoning. There are also a few other theories that suggest internal bleeding of some kind.


Second quick thing: "But Dread", I hear you say, "That's pretty boring! Attila's supposed to be a crazy murdering cruel barbarian! Tell us about cruel things!" Well, ok. Much as the REAL reason he has gone down in history is because he was a particularly (arguably the MOST) siginifcant barbarian leader in the history of Rome, simply because he was the one who beat them up the most. Thus, he got lots of press. HOWEVER, he wasn't without his cruel charms. There's a legend that on his second trip into Rome, he stopped at a particular town in Northern Italy, and didn't attack it. Instead, he found a nearby hill, and ordered his men to construct a castle on it. After it was complete, he THEN got his troops to burn the town; he simply wanted the castle for a higher vantage point to watch the town burn.

Answers to the other questions coming shortly!
 
Alright, 3 quick answers to 3 quick questions:


Could one accurately compare America's dependency on Oil from the Middle East to Early Rome's dependency on Egyptian wheat?

Short Answer: yes. In fact, I would likely say that Egyptian wheat was more important to Rome than that US's oil. In order to accurately compare it, though, you'd have to really focus on what each resource did within society; in our case, both were the driving factor behind the respective military, for instance. Both had gone significantly out of their way to encourage and build infrastructure for the importation of said resource... you get the picture. But yeah; personal opinion says that Egypt's grain was more integral to the Roman society than middle eastern oil to the Americans, but it would be an interesting thing to argue, certainly.


hmmm i want you to tell me everything you know about Norse mythology

i dont care if you get wall-of-texty

i find Loki interesting so you can focus on him

or any god for that matter


I know plenty about Norse mythology. Here's the problem: What you're asking for is a textbook. Note that most of the other questions in this thread are people asking opinions or 'an introduction' to a given topic that they aren't all that familiar with. You're clearly familiar with Norse myth, and while I hate to refuse a request, You're just asking for general information. I'd be happy to answer a more specific question, but if you're just looking for a broad survey, much as I hate to say this, head over to wikipedia.


lol commando; ummm is there really a devinchi code? or something like that....


The Da Vinci Code is a book by Dan Brown, written in 2003. In short, there isn't actually a code called 'the Da Vinci code'; it refers to a number of symbols that Da Vinci supposedly placed in many of his works in and around the Vatican city. The protagonist of the book is a symbologist and is trying to work out the secret code that Da Vinci supposedly put in his art. It's a detective-action-mystery type of book, and if you're into that sort of thing, it might be worth a shot.
 
Dreadmaker, you are a history god.

Next Question: What can you tell me about the Knights of the Round Table?


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNqMi0TuL6o&feature=related"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNqMi0TuL6o&feature=related[/ame]



This is all you ever need to know about the Knights of the Round Table. Ignore everything else I say.


The thing is, I can't tell you much about the Knights, because we actually don't know much about them. We do know a lot about them as written in fictive stories, but the existence of them is a hotly debated topic.


Let's start with Arthur. we don't know if he existed. He was mentioned in a 12th century writer's history of all of the english kings, but it sorta caught a lot of scholars off-guard, because he was never mentioned before that. To be honest, my personal opinion lies firmly in the camp of 'they never existed', because the venerable Bede, in his Ecclesiastical History of the English People, which is generally touted as a phenomenally accurate work, didn't mention anyone that could be interpreted as Arthur. But, that doesn't stop us talking about them a little bit, anyhow.


To be fair, to accurately answer your question, I'm out of my league. Because of their fictitious roots, the person you would want to ask is someone who specialized in medieval text analysis, who are almost always English majors. However, I'll try to fill the gaps.

In essence, the idea of Arthur being a king of England was, in essence, put forth just like I said it there; it was put in a text by a 12th century 'historian'. Over time, people began to add things to the story, including the Knights. For instance, Lancelot was added soon after Arthur was written about, by a poet named Chretien de Troyes. He wrote an epic poem called 'Lancelot' in the early 13th century (which I had the pleasure of reading). Others came in over time, from different literary sources.

As for the Round Table itself, the same people who wrote about Arthur for the first time described why he made the concept of a round table. Apparently, it was to stop quarreling amongst his barons, none of whom would accept a lower position at the table, further away from their king. So, a round table put everyone on a level playing field, and supposedly helped the whole quarreling thing.


That's where my info has to end, sadly. I recognize that that answer isn't as thorough as some of the others, but neither is the history around it. Arthur is really a mystery to modern historians, and we don't really have evidence one way or another as to his existence. All of our sources are from medieval poems, chronicles, etc. Arthur is also a fantastic example of modern-medievalism: essentially, it's a trend within modern pop-culture to look back and pull medieval myth from the past and use it in popular media today. Arthur has spawned tons of movies and modern works of fiction, and that's what that phenomena is called. However, once again, I must confess that an English major would serve you better here.
 
Last edited:
Thanks a lot for the answer Dread! Im writing a full length paper about it, I just wanted to make sure I wasn't totally off base lol
 
Thanks a lot for the answer Dread! Im writing a full length paper about it, I just wanted to make sure I wasn't totally off base lol


That's excellent. I would LOVE to see that essay when it's done; I'm interested in what you come up with. Like I said, yes, there's most certainly a connection, and you'll have to be careful about how you approach it, but if you give it proper consideration it'll go well.

The reason I'd be interested in looking at it, of course, is because while I know there IS a connection, and should I have the same paper to write, I'd be happy to do the research and form my own opinion, but at present, my opinion isn't all that well developed; as such, I'd love to see yours.


Was merlin actually a wizard of the past, meaning like know things that were not of there time

Just like I said in the Knights of the Round table response above, we don't actually know any details about anything involved in Arthurian tradition; Merlin could well have existed, or he could be entirely fictional. We have evidence both for and against, and both tend to be equally valid.

So, in layman's terms: Damned if I know. However, I don't feel too bad about saying that, because any historian in the world would have precisely the same response :p
 
Back
Top