[deleted]

WW2 question. It seemed that the USA of the 1930s and 40s values lined up perfectly with what was going on in Germany. Blacks, gays, Jews were all looked down upon , killed, arrested for various things. It seems the purification of Germany would have appealed to the USA. So my question is , if Japan had no tracked us, would America have been more sympathetic towards the Axis.

As it was we had several US Senators who were openly pro Nazi and didn’t suffer for their beliefs (except lose re election after the war ended). Did Japan “save us” from joining the bad guys.

In the movie The Northman, some raiders, after having raided a village and enslaved much of its population, then threw a bunch of people (the rest whom they didn't enslave?) into a house and burned them alive.

I found a thread here in which someone states, with a citation, that this was indeed a practice at that time and place. However, no explanation was offered there as to why they did this?

So that's my question. What would be the reason for killing those people? Why not just leave them behind?

OK, I recently uploaded a post to r/history but the mods took it down for some reason and then referred me here. I think it's an important historical question, so I still wanted some input. The question is as follows:

In most of the Western world, the path of a man and woman to becoming married typically begins with a relatively casual, informal encounter between them. After this informal encounter, the man and woman begin engaging in dating activities and begin referring to each other as “boyfriend” or “girlfriend”. This relationship is initiated by the couple themselves and organized by the couple themselves. The interpersonal chemistry and intimacy between the man and woman gradually grows throughout the duration of the dating process. At the couple’s discretion, the man and woman may or may not include sexual intercourse as a part of their dating process. Whether or not the couple have sex while dating is usually of little concern to anyone else beside themselves. If things between them don’t work out, they informally break up; if things do work out, the man, of his own accord, will likely ask the woman to marry him. Whether and when they get engaged is entirely at the discretion of the couple themselves. The choice of the couple getting married is typically based on their mutual chemistry and love for one another.

This is more or less the custom of romantic courtship that most of the developed world is familiar with. But it’s my understanding that this custom is not the way it has always been. From ancient times, it appears that arranged marriage was the norm for how a man and woman got involved in a romantic relationship that would lead to marriage. Typically, a bachelor or his parents would go to the parents of the woman that the bachelor wanted to marry and would offer the woman’s parents a bride-price. (Or alternatively in some cultures, the parents of a woman would offer a payment of dowry to the family of a bachelor to give away their daughter in marriage to the bachelor.) The beginning of the relationship was arranged largely from outside the couple by family members of the couple, rather than the man and woman directly choosing each other. The initial encounter between the man and woman appears to be more formal and organized. After the bride-price or dowry is paid and the man and woman are now betrothed, a marriage date between them is planned upon. Often the man and woman know each other very little, if at all; thus there is often little or no real chemistry or romance between them at the time of marriage. The couple get socially acquainted with each other after their marriage instead of before. The woman is often forbidden from fornicating, and is expected to maintain her virginity while still a maiden, and only give up her virginity to her betrothed as a consummation of their marriage. This preservation of her virginity ensures that her husband’s eventual heir is genuine and will be able to carry on the husband’s bloodline. Furthermore, the woman’s virginity is of great concern to her parents, as the betrothal of a virgin daughter will fetch a higher bride-price for the family; alternatively, a non-virgin daughter may be of far less value, if she can even be married away at all. The betrothal between the man and woman is essentially a formal monetary transaction between the families of the man and woman. The couple’s relationship has less of a romantic purpose and more of a social purpose, involving the covenant between the two families in order to ensure a progeny and a family life for their respective son and daughter.

Here’s my question: At some point in history the arranged marriage system became phased out in most of the developed world and was replaced by the more informal system of men and woman getting girlfriends and boyfriends, respectively. When did this happen? Why did this happen? What social or historical forces led to this change in how people engaged in romance? How did the concept of the "boyfriend/girlfriend" develop?

Interestingly French short lived colony in Brazil in second half of 16th century was a haven for Huguenots

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

Ultimately, yes Masters of the ship (merchant ships most often had just the master) carried some money with them to pay expenses

but for your exact cases situation is more complicated. Crew was usually hired for specific journey and payment was agreed to be done at end destination which often was at return to original port (to make sure your crew stays all trip). Some advance would be given before sailing (e.g. 4 months wages in some exploratory voyages). Payment would then be settled in relative safety and availability of funds in familiar port.

Additionally "banks" would often be involved and instead of actual cash, bank letters of exchange could be given. Not sure how widespread that would be but it was definetly an option to make sure not much cash was carried on the trip itself. If nothing else the master could withdraw cash at the port from a bank if he needed cash for wages.

The same goes for cargo, banking and exchanges were the norm. Just wanted to point out by then there was a separation of shipping and trading so while the master could buy and ship his own goods, he may just as well just sell space on his ship and let others deal with buying and selling goods

But considering the social position of the French protestants and then consider the implications of forced deportation, that would definitely be the Religious and Civil Wars cranked up to the max.

Can anyone recommend reading material about the tactics and strategy of major historical socio-political movements like the suffragettes or civil rights movement?

For some context, I am a social scientist working on collective climate activism. I am interested in comparing the success of movements that have focused on winning public approval/disrupting the public for attention/disrupting structures of power. Would love to read some academic books or papers that discuss a) tactics/strategy, and b) public reactions.

French colonial policy wasn't as well planned as other states. One such policy was to deport prostitutes and criminals to a colony, and it didn't work.

Deporting the French protestants would probably either be a failure or if successful, have a potentially disloyal colony.

You might get cheques or letters of credit trading between European ports, banking had advanced that much by then. But ships trading with distant countries took gold or silver (depending on what was most valued) to pay for cargo, if they couldn't pay from sales of the goods they sold on the outbound journey. Crew would be payed when the ship docked, sometimes they'd only get their full pay when the ship reached its home port.

[removed]

[removed]

Likely not. For several reasons.

One, a number of powerful nobles had embraced Calvinism. John Calvin himself believed that the reason the Huguenots were able to flourish was the conversions of nobles like Jeanne III of Navarre and Louis I, Prince of Condé.

Two, the French crown was in dire financial straits, which would have made it unlikely for them to support expeditions in the Americas (which often failed). The lack of funding itself was a major reason why the Wars of Religion kept reoccurring: the crown lacked the funds to either enforce the majority of its edicts of tolerance or destroy the Huguenots entirely. This was because the constant warfare Charles VIII, Louis XII, François I, and Henri II had waged against Italians and/or the Habsburgs had drained the treasury and the reoccurring civil wars disrupted agriculture, which just created something of a vicious cycle.

Third, religious tension in Great Britain wasn't actually eased all the much by having colonies. While some Puritans were fine going off to Massachusetts Bay Colony, there were plenty of them that weren't, like Oliver Cromwell, and that other issues led to the Wars of the Three Kingdoms.

The Mummies of Venzone: A Fascinating Look at Mummification

[removed]

What if's are overall quite pointless, but consider how in very few cases emigration truly solved everything. Ireland was never pacified, the emigration of puritans did not stop them from being pivotal in the English Civil War, etc. So, most probably, it would have mattered little. Remember that the Huguenots in France were also often well-off groups with vested interests and not necessarily with much incentives to abandon all that.

Italy was actually quite populated, and Rome had managed to integrate central Italy quite thoroughly, particularly during the 4th century (for example, see the Latin Wars). This demographic advantage coupled with the thorough political integration wrought over the centuries ensured Rome could survive Hannibal's onslaught. But make no mistake, the toll was hard. In that sense, it was the payoff of Rome's policies of integration in generations prior. Those who abandoned Rome mostly were recent conquests.

The Allies mostly remained as such, later on leading to the Social Wars (91-87 BCE).

[removed]

Had France started colonizing the new world earlier on, is it possible that the Huegenot Massacre could have been averted? Could the French have sent the Huegenots there, just as the English would eventually send Irish revolutionaries to Australia?

Watching the movie Greyhound (good movie btw) it made me think, what happened if you joined the Navy in WW2 or before and found out you were violently sea sick? I would assume most guys joining the Navy back then had probably never been on a boat as traveling wasn’t as common, and certainly not on rough seas. Would they be reassigned to something land-based or would they just have to suck it up/live with it until they hopefully got used to it?

How did Rome manage to sustain the losses during the second Punic war? Was it mainly it's allies that took the brunt of the losses to Carthage? What happened to the allies of Rome after the war, did they become citizens?

I am curious about maritime commerce in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Did the captain of a trading ship carry box of gold or something to pay for goods and pay the crew? When selling at a foreign port did they take payment or was there some credit scheme or something similar?

[removed]

Got it! Just wanted to sort it out for myself. Thanks!

[removed]