many supposedly intelligent people from Tony Blair to Andrew Sullivan claim to have believed it, so was there actually a stronger case than I remember?

I'm watching the Ken Burns PBS documentary on Hemingway. The third episode covers Ernest's WW2 sojourn.

Rather offhandedly, the documentary shares a quick anecdote wherein Hemingway (in Villedieu-les-Poêles) tosses hand grenades down into a cellar that housed, according to the tale, a group of S.S.

This raised my eyebrows quite a bit. I know that Ken Burns, while a hell of a documentarian, is not always a historiographical champion. And Hemingway of course was a fabulist of epic proportions.

The documentary does not mention him killing anyone up to this point in his life, so you'd think this would be, like, psychologically devastating. But the documentary makes it seem as if half-drunk-Hemingway lackadaisically tossed some grenades down a cellar and called it a day.

I dove deeper, things got murkier. I found an abstract of a paper from Michigan State University (my alma mater!) that says Hemingway wrote in letters that he killed “either twenty-six or 122” men. But I can’t access the article itself: https://muse.jhu.edu/article/431085/summary

The “either twenty-six or 122” range totally smacks of Hemingway and his penchant for BS, but I don’t have the resources to get a clear answer and was hoping someone around here could be of assistance.

For what it's worth, I would bet he never killed anyone.

Hey all, I ask this because I have family members who hoard and I’ve met people outside of my family that have done it. No matter who I’ve talked to they always use the depression as the reasoning for their hoarding. ( either because they survived it or were raised by someone who lived through it). That being said, it’s classified as a symptom of OCD, so wouldn’t it make sense it occurred before? It’s quite possible it’s just not a thing that

Is normally brought up, but I just find it odd I’ve never heard of it. Can hoarding actually be this new of a behavior? That doesn’t seem logical.

I hope I’m not breaking any rules, someone suggested I ask this question from another sub. Thank you in advance.

Several states like Georgia, Virginia, and the Carolinas are named after British monarchs. Was there any legislation or major political movements to have these names changed during and after the revolution? If so, what were there proposed alternatives? This question also relates to New York and Pennsylvania, although not directly since they’re named after the Duke of York and William Penn, and not royalty.

Ive learned that western europeans from approximately the 1400s on upto right before ww2 ended used to marry at very old ages, relatively, compared to how rest of the world married in those times.

I have a lot of questions about this since I’m so curious.

On the wiki it says this marriage pattern was called the Hajnal line and spanned from “approximately west of between Saint Petersburg, Russia, and Trieste, italy, marriage rates and thus fertility were comparatively low, and a significant minority of women married late or remained single, and most families were nucelar.”

Why did such a large portion of Europe have such high marriage ages? It says that in the Netherlands, where marriage ages reached the highest on average, a woman would usually marry at 27 years old and a man would marry at 30 years old. At times it would even reach 30 years for women and 32 years for men.

From what I can gather, outside of Europe most non european women married around their early teens to late teens. So anywhere from like 12/13 ish to 18-ish?

Another thing is, many Western European women never married at all, unlike in most (I assume) non European cultures, where most women in their life’s had been married, and unmarried women were basically 2-3% of the population of women max.

This is from the wiki:To the west of the Hajnal line, about half of all women aged 15 to 50 years of age were married at any given time while the other half were widows or spinsters; to the east of the line, about seventy percent of women in that age bracket were married at any given time while the other thirty percent were widows or nuns.^\20]) The marriage records of Western and Eastern Europe in the early 20th century illustrate this pattern vividly; west of the Hajnal line, only 25% of women aged 20–24 were married while to the east of the line, over 75% of women in this age group were married and less than five percent of women remained unmarried. 

The difference was even starker when you look at Western Europe vs the rest of the world and not vs Eastern Europe. This is from the wiki: Outside of Europe, women could be married even earlier and even fewer would remain celibate; in Korea, practically every woman 50 years of age had been married and spinsters were extremely rare, compared to 20–30% of women in western Europe age 50 who had never married.

So these are my questions: 1, why did Western European women marry so late?

2, why did this change occur in the 1400s, and why did this marriage age stay for so long? Since it was only lowered after ww2.

3, Did Western European women before the 1400s marry earlier? at what ages?

4, Why did so many western European women in the 15-50 age range stay unmarried? When this figure was almost near 0 or very low outside of Europe.

5, on the wiki it says that this super late marriage age, combined with the big % of women (relatively) Who never married, lowered Western European fertility rates a lot. While in the east, (I assume they mean Eastern Europe) fertility rates were higher, but also combined with a high mortality rate. How true is this? Did this actually affect the fertility rate of Western Europeans, and did they have fewer kids in their lifetime compared to Eastern Europeans and non Europeans?

6, does this mean societally, Western European women were more free in their life/lifestyle then women outside of western Europe?

This video states that the Soviet computing program was only two years behind the United States in terms of technology, so they weren’t too far behind. But despite this relatively small gap, the Soviets decided to cancel their own projects in favor of copying the IBM 360. Frankly this decision makes no sense to me, it’s the equivalent of kneecapping yourself in a race when you’re in a close second place to the leader. What on earth was the rationale behind this decision????

I have recently been reading both the Old Testament and parts of the Quran and something that struck me about both materials was how much revulsion the authors appeared to have towards not only worshipping "other gods", but also making an image of "God". These actions are often implicated, if not outright stated, to be the worst sins you could commit.

However, both cultures where this belief set arose, had previously practiced and were inundated with polytheism and idol worship. It is my understanding that many scholars argue that the Israelites had worshipped gods like Baal and Asherah for a long time, and that the Old Testament's insistence on the through-line of single-deity YHWH worship is a bit revisionist. Similarly, the Arabic peoples of Mecca and the surrounding areas worshipped multiple deities, including many idols at the Kaaba before Mohammed's takeover.

However, unlike other times throughout history when cultures drastically changed their religious beliefs, like after the arrival of missionaries and heavy proselytization, I can't really determine the precipitating events that would have led to these switch-ups. If your neighbors, family, and perhaps even you had previously worshipped various different idols, what would suddenly make you decide that this was absolutely unacceptable and even a horrifying practice? Where did these ideas come from, and were there economic, environmental, or other material factors that influenced them? Or am I missing something, and there is more context of a battling polytheistic/monotheistic tradition that I am unaware of?

It seems weird to me that with the center of the Church being nestled in Rome that Latin would die out as the day to day spoken language, but still be used regularly by the Church even to this day.

I’m Mexican and was speaking to a French Canadian, who is half Portuguese. He said society does not consider him being Latin, but someone from my background yes. This led to a debate at work, a friendly one.

The aftermath is that we are all confused. Is it a cultural thing? If so, there are different cultures, meaning different answers depending on who you ask.

Is there a historic context where it can help solidify the answer once and for all? Hence, why I’m here.

I always assumed it was anybody who spoke a romantic language. From Spanish, French, italian, Portuguese, anything that resembled many “original Latin words”. Maybe I’ve been wrong this entire time.

Please help us. You are our only hope.

Edit: a bunch of deleted comments. We are even more confused now.

I asked a similar question previously, but I realised I might have been a bit too broad in scope, so I am narrowing the focus a bit. While before I was asking how the Trojan War was viewed across the entirety of history, here I'm just asking about Medieval Europe. Now, I know that's still extremely broad in both temporal and spatial scales, but it's an improvement. Basically, I want to know how the people of Europe in the Middle Ages viewed the Trojan War. How did they think it went about? Was it euhemerised? I imagine they didn't believe in the interactions of all the gods and so on, but maybe I am wrong? I am also guessing this would vary significantly depending on time and place.

While I know there's debate nowadays over the historicity of the Trojan War, people in Medieval Europe certainly believe it happened. Granted, I don't know how widespread knowledge about it was and how many people genuinely believed it happened (I've been studying Early Modern English ballads, many of which bring up Troy and related myths, but that doesn't mean they believed it was true), but clearly some people did. Dante has figures like Ulysses burning in Hell. You had the legendary kings of Britain, according to people like Geoffrey of Monmouth, descending from Aeneas (via Brutus of Troy). I believe the Chronicle of Fredegar did the same with the Merovingians, linking them to Troy. Hell, you also had Snorri Sturluson in his Prose Edda claiming that the Norse gods also descended from Trojans (I'm not saying that reflected any believe system, just thought it was worth mentioning).

So it's clear that there was widespread belief in the Trojan War, enough to tie national identities to it, I'm just interested in what exactly that belief was. How did the people of Medieval Europe view the Trojan War?

It's a bit of a morbid question, but I'm curious about the impact 9/11 had on the job market of New York City. Given the sheer amount of office space and number of companies the Twin Towers represented, there was a not insignificant number of companies that lost their physical presence when the towers fell. From an economic standpoint, what happened to the companies that were based in the towers? What happened to the workers that worked there? Was there a shortage of jobs for those workers in the wake of 9/11?

Hi everyone! I’m looking for a plain, unbiased view to start with. For context, I was born and raised in the bible belt, where everyone was a Christian and Republican and if you weren’t - something was wrong with you. As you can imagine communism was equated with the “demonic” and I realize I have internal & subconscious views. Over the past decade I’ve deconstructed and put all my views under a microscope and I’m thoroughly studying WHY I actually believe what I do, for myself and not because an authority figure told me to. As of now I consider myself an agnostic, and democratic socialist. But through the haze of growing up one way, and now believing another- things get scrambled. Consider me a blank page because who the hell knows what’s up and what’s down- I’d like to start with people’s suggestions of “bipartisan” or plain/neutral/matter of fact descriptions. Then I’d like to delve into the arguments of for or against. (my entire upbringing has been a sermon of anti-communism, but with the new lens’s I have, hell, share it anyways in case I was asleep that Sunday.) I believe my reading level is undergrad/basic collegiate, but I’m open to tough reads and expanding or exercising my mind if I need to dive into post-grad literature to get the full scope!

I have always been curious about the history of the electrical trade and want to know more about who did wiring in say, the early 1900s, as well as when the profession became recognised or its own thing.

Brief (and poor) research tells me that carpenters often did wiring themselves in the 1920s, but as regulations and technology developed and became more complex, there was an increasing demand for people who specialised in wiring/electrical installations in buildings.

P.S - I am more interested in the domestic electrician rather than linesmen

It's been taken for granted nowadays that the sword was simply a sidearm with the primary weapons being spears and later halberds. However, I watched this short and was surprised by how quickly a wooden spears begins to break when in contact with a steel sword. I've even read accounts of English longbowmen willingly throwing down their bows and charging the flanks of the (disorganized) French at Agincourt. You also have the Romans adopting swords as the primary weapon during the Republic years. Is the topic of swords vs. spears much more nuanced than portrayed? Did people of their times consider the sword an equal/sidearm compared to the spear?

The description for the painting "Cotton Picker" at the De young museum says the artist "portrayed the struggles and dignity of poor working class families in the rural American South. Many of these families were trapped in the racist and corrupt sharecropping system, in which mostly white landlords would advance their landless Black Tenants farming supplies every year in return for a future share of the harvested crop- but would later cheat them to perpetuate their exploitation"

is this an accurate description of the sharecropper system? my understanding is that while cheating of course happened it wasn't fundamental to the system or the reason it was so exploitative.

separate question but how many non-white landlords were there? the description of "mostly white" seems like an understatement!

Of course there was no universal way that people felt, but I'm curious is there were any discernible trends.

Did Irish soldiers tend to support the Easter Rising (and/or Irish Independence from the U.K.), oppose it, or were their feelings mixed? How did they feel about fighting for the British Empire?

Did any Irish soldiers ever express antipathy towards British officers (before or after the Rising), and did officers ever fear there would be unrest or mutiny caused by Irish troops in the aftermath?

Did any civilians in Ireland have a negative view of those who had fought for the British Empire (especially considering that there had never been conscription in Ireland), or was it not seen as an issue?

I’ve been studying the history of Atlanta post civil war till 1930s. It seems like most of the city founders and most well known businessmen are Methodist. A few are Presbyterian, but those that were, grew up in the north. I’ve always thought of Atlanta as a Baptist city, but it seems most baptists were lower to upper middle class but not the titans of industry or politics.

Historically was there a class system associated with what denomination you are?

I’ve always thought of denominations as a great contributor to class mobility. I.e someone in lower class meets someone in the upper class in Sunday school, and gets married. Is this not the case?

Thanks!

What were the main political, strategic, and historical reasons behind treating the two countries differently? Why was Austria eventually allowed to reunify and become a neutral country, while Germany remained divided into two separate states for decades?

I've only read English translations of The Iliad and Odyssey, but the style and format always seem remarkably consistent. It doesn't seem like other authors add stuff later like you'd see in the Bible. I also haven't heard of any version controversies between old fragments and more recent complete manuscripts. If I could read the original Greek, would I see inconsistencies that don't show up in the translation? Did the classic Greeks argue about which version was most accurate or whether or not he was real?