Recent comments in /f/history

quantdave t1_jeb2zkx wrote

Reply to comment by ZXCChort in Weekly History Questions Thread. by AutoModerator

While St Petersburg may have been the more prestigious prize, Moscow would have been strategically the more valuable city, offering routes to the north, east and south and hopefully less challenging climatic conditions (even if these weren't mild in the event): the northern capital is attractive but strategically something of a dead-end unless your adversary chooses to stake everything on holding it, which couldn't be assumed.

2

LanEvo7685 t1_jeawvsj wrote

Reply to Weekly History Questions Thread. by AutoModerator

Hi I have been wanting to piece together the historical background of a WW2 story in my family's history and I don't know where to ask, especially since this is a serious sub so I am hesitant to start a thread.

I am from Hong Kong and this happened in either HK or in Guangdong before my dad/grandparents came to HK. All I've heard is this: During WW2 my grandfather was captured by the Japanese and he escaped and crossed the river in his escape by hiding underwater breathing through reeds.

I don't have a lot of connection to family, but this story fascinated me and I'd like to learn more about the specific background. I don't think my grandfather was a soldier/resistance fighter but I have read that Japanese would capture random civilians people either for torture or kill/ for forced labor / or to be sold as slaves.

1

quantdave t1_jeak383 wrote

Reply to comment by JoJoCa3 in Weekly History Questions Thread. by AutoModerator

OK, I understand now. I'd really like to see a good series on China or Japan, but sadly I've never encountered any that fit the bill. For WW2 the UK series The World at War (26 hour-long episodes) remains highly regarded, though I still recall the BBC's earlier 6-part Grand Strategy as a good overview. The latter sadly seems forgotten, but a search for the former may be rewarding. ;)

1

MerelyMortalModeling t1_jeadiwb wrote

Reply to The 'Stonehenge calendar' shown to be a modern construct by osaba_mozkorra

This is just another theory in a huge field of competing theories. I wouldnt place too much emphasis on it as others in the field have already pointed out that the authors are just giving preference to their pet assumptions over other researchers' preferences.

Most glaringly is their 1st point, which assumes that ancients required a few arc minutes or greater precision, thats kinda ridiculous. For reference, the dot that is Jupiter to the naked eye is about 1 arc minute wide.

20 years ago, Dr Clive Ruggles wrote a paper that I feel lays out an elegant and convincing argument.

There are no first-hand records or writing from the period. We simply dont know if Stonehenge was or was not used for "astronomy," and if anyone says otherwise, they have to be making large assumptions. Those assumptions tell you more about the researchers in question than they do about Stonehenge.

59

delrioaudio t1_jeacs6z wrote

Reply to The 'Stonehenge calendar' shown to be a modern construct by osaba_mozkorra

One of the arguments is that the movement of the sun is harder to measure closer to the solstice and Stonehenge could not have been accurate enough, but thr Aztecs were able to correct this with a second sight stone, if I remember correctly. Like sighting a rifle, they would have 2 reference points to line up that would produce an accurate enough measurement to keep the seasons on track with their calendar.

22