Recent comments in /f/history

mrloube t1_jcsh0gi wrote

Why on earth would the French National Assembly let the tensions between France and Austria escalate to war? Why was Brissot such a warmonger and why did the people in power listen to him?

6

Doctor_Impossible_ t1_jcsezql wrote

The Warsaw Pact was essentially meant to mirror NATO as a military alliance. The countries are where they where then, they haven't moved or anything. East Germany no longer exists as it reunified with West Germany. Poland, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Albania, the Czech Republic all joined NATO over the past 20-odd years. The USSR dissolved.

5

quantdave t1_jcrz7fz wrote

Yes, I think that's a helpful way to to think about it: either scholar might in theory undertake either study, one taking history as the starting-point, the other geography: the geographer might take a longer-run approach, studying how location, urban form, economic specialisation, regional linkages and social structure shaped Boston's political character, but that too could use the 1770s as its focus.

Environmental history's another growing field intimately related to both traditional disciplines and particularly with population/economic history and historical geography, and now enriched by increasing application of techniques like pollen ice-core & tree-ring analysis which may yet supplant earlier approaches in some contexts. I'd say that where history starts from human populations in or over time and historical geography from the physical context, environmental history's more explicitly about the interaction between the two: the same might be said of historical geography too, but there the focus tends to be more specifically on the impact on the human populations concerned.

My historical geography texts tend to be rather old and my economic geography ones older still and more narrowly-focused, contemporary rather than specifically historical treatments clustering mostly the first half of the 20th century (when we get the first modern studies), so I hesitate to recommend any. NJG Pounds' Historical geography of Europe and its successors are perhaps the best-known, but there's also a later Oxford multi-author work of the same title bringing together both geographers and historians that I must get my hands on. I don't know of anything similar for the US, for which I tend to use economic & demographic studies and the census record: perhaps the phenomenon of the shifting frontier has worked against more general treatments integrating both disciplines.

2

quantdave t1_jcrqm1i wrote

Most scholarly history today tends to reach far beyond the old "kings, queens & wars" narrative, delving into social, economic, demographic, cultural or technological development rather than just the headline political and military upheavals. But the way we compartmentalise the subject leads to such approaches often being shunted off into discrete realms of economic history, social history, cultural history etc, so that the undifferentiated "history" that's left can end up looking suspiciously like those kings, queens & wars that we though we'd escaped. And the problem's accentuated in an audio-visual format that thrives on drama and visual impact - TV history shares many of youtube's limitations, and even radio can be an unsatisfying medium.

MeatballDom's reply usefully points to a rewarding approach: rather than trying to bite off too much, looking at the context of a specific event or process from different angles can shed new light on it: "So x happened. What was happening with population, economic activity, technology or social relations that might have contributed to x happening in the way that it did and having the consequences that it did?" sometimes the continuities can be as revealing as the transformations: if w didn't change, something else must have caused x to happen. Sometimes that will mean setting your topic aside for a moment to explore wider or longer-term developments and conditions in connection with a particular theme. Another approach I find valuable (or a variation on the same approach) is to look at the behaviour of narrower geographical areas within your study area: great events might have played out on a national or international stage, but their impacts were experienced locally, and often in different ways, and how different areas responded in turn fed into wider development.

Without knowing more about your particular interests it's difficult to offer any specific recommendations: general histories tend to be unrewarding because they'll inevitably focus on some aspects and overlook others according to the author's focus or taste. For youtube presentations, I find academic lectures and panel discussions the most useful - the second especially, as it offers multiple perspectives and highlights areas of scholarly disagreement. But at some point you're going to dragged into the books and research papers, many of which are available online - and that's where you'll find in-depth answers and infuriating new puzzles to solve.

5

pigpotjr t1_jcrn6s4 wrote

Thank you! Just to make sure I understand it correctly. An academic historian would study the American Revolution in Boston, but an academic geographer would study how the location of Boston contributed to its role in the American Revolution? If this is the case, how is this different from Environmental History?

Also, do you have any recommendations for academic geography literature so as to get a better idea of the field's research? Thanks again; I am just confused about how both fields differ since they seem so similar.

1

pickleer t1_jcrjalj wrote

Heh, someone else answered this, I just hadn't read far enough down. Basically, the old design was streamlined to allow for unimpeded water flow and it spread the blow over a wide area to smash concussively, rather than merely pierce. Since the old ships didn't use nails but rather mortise and tenon joinery, a smashing blow rendered much more damage, kinda like a hollow point bullet's expansion creates a wider wound cavity than just piercing straight through would. Or think a hunting arrow vs a field point.

EDIT: Your brittle comment was addressed as well- the rams were kept as short as possible.

2

elmonoenano t1_jcrfq23 wrote

Yeah, there's a lot more to history. Most good history books, even if they're focusing on something like war, are going to talk about the politics, economics, technology and infrastructure/logistics of the situation. Those questions are usually more important than the war itself b/c the cause of the war and the resolution are tied up in those factors.

If you look at something like Ukraine's fight today, the explanation for tactics are intricately tied to global supply and politics. Why Russia lost so many tanks has to do with their politics and economic situation. You need to have some idea of those things to understand what is going on and it's no different in the past.

1

shantipole t1_jcrbjlw wrote

The ship itself was absolutely massive, and made for good footage.

In addition, the cost of passage was very high. Only the very wealthy could afford it, so there was a celebrity-watching aspect to it.

Finally, there were rumors that she was being used by the Nazis for spying and she was certainly being used for propaganda--any day now the US might have stopped allowing her to land at what was a Navy base, ending these flights maybe forever.

6

jrhooo t1_jcra6fe wrote

> For most of history, war was seasonal: as such, some, if not most soldiers will leave for the winter, and return when the war resumes; …

>….so skipping planting won't cause starvation, feeding a large force in one place for long is extremely expensive without railroads

Great respone. Also made me immediately think of an example where this was true even today

Afghanistan - The Fighting Season

1

WorkUsername69 t1_jcr5xix wrote

I haven’t read any of these so can’t speak on them, ut here is a list of sources for the Wikipedia page in the subject:

Bittner, Donald F. (1983). The Lion and the White Falcon: Britain and Iceland in the World War II Era. Hamden: Archon Books. ISBN 0-208-01956-1.

Cadogan, Sir Alexander George Montagu (1971). Dilks, David (ed.). The diaries of Sir Alexander Cadogan, O.M., 1938–1945. London: Cassell. ISBN 0-304-93737-1.

Karlsson, Gunnar (2000). Iceland's 1100 Years: History of a Marginal Society. London: Hurst. ISBN 1-85065-420-4.

Magnúss, Gunnar M. (1947). Virkið í norðri: Hernám Íslands: I. bindi [Fortress North: Iceland Occupation: Volume I]. Reykjavík: Ísafoldarprentsmiðja. Miller, James (2003). The North Atlantic Front: Orkney, Shetland, Faroe and Iceland at War. Edinburgh: Birlinn. ISBN 1-84341-011-7.

Stacey, C. P. (1970). Arms, Men and Governments: The War Policies of Canada, 1939–1945. Ottawa: Queen's Printer. D2-5569. Archived from the original on 5 August 2014. Retrieved 3 July 2016.

Stacey, C. P. (1955). Official History of the Canadian Army in the Second World War, Vol. I: Six Years of War. Ottawa: Queen's Printer. Archived from the original on 1 April 2019. Retrieved 3 July 2016.

Whitehead, Þór (1999). Bretarnir koma: Ísland í síðari heimsstyrjöld [The British are coming: Iceland in World War II]. Reykjavík: Vaka-Helgafell. ISBN 9979-2-1435-X.

Whitehead, Þór (1995). Milli vonar og ótta: Ísland í síðari heimsstyrjöld [Between hope and fear: Iceland in World War II]. Reykjavík: Vaka-Helgafell. ISBN 9979-2-0317-X.

2

gamerdude69 t1_jcr5wju wrote

You think every superstition is true because someone thinks it is? You think there's something to astrology? palm reading? Sacrificing a rabbit to make someone heal faster? Why are you assuming that these people are correct in their superstitions?

10