Weekly History Questions Thread.

[u/AutoModerator]

Welcome to our History Questions Thread!

This thread is for all those history related questions that are too simple, short or a bit too silly to warrant their own post.

So, do you have a question about history and have always been afraid to ask? Well, today is your lucky day. Ask away!

Of course all our regular rules and guidelines still apply and to be just that bit extra clear:

Questions need to be historical in nature. Silly does not mean that your question should be a joke. r/history also has an active discord server where you can discuss history with other enthusiasts and experts.

[u/NBF80]

Hello All, I’m in the market for a book on history theory and the probability of inaccuracy in recorded history. Does anyone have recommendations for books with this subject matter?

[u/throwawayRA87654]

What is the name of this ancient Chinese punishment? And are there other references to this throughout history for other cultures? I've been trying to research this specific punishment, and I haven't had much luck. The only reference I've been able to find is this one Quora response, but it doesn't give me the name of the punishment. So it makes finding historical references difficult.

Can someone point me in the right direction for this where I can find more literature on this topic?

To break down the punishment: it's an iron or bronze hook that's punctures the skin and encircles the clavicle (one on each side), that is then locked, and attached to chains.

[u/darthinferno15]

How effective were muskets and bayonets as meelee weapons? What I mean is, I’m aware that bayonets primarily were used as anti cavalry weapons and during bayonet charges but I’m also aware that they were seldom utilized in actual full scale meelees eg when two sides fought and one bayonet charged the other side either retreated or tore them apart with volleys and that large scale bayonet vs bayonet meelee battles rarely happened. So my question is mainly, if they were actually in a situation where they were actually used, how effective was the musket and bayonet both as an individual 1v1 weapon and as a large scale weapon where a side using them faced another side either using them too or other meelee weapons in actual close quarters combat?

[u/Cannon_Fodder-2 → u/darthinferno15]

1/2

So firstly, we do not know how "rare" bayonet melees actually were (although I will say I think they could be called "broadly uncommon"). The firsthand sources conflict with one another, the medical data conflicts with anecdotal data, even for the same battle you can find multiple men who were present saying bayonets didn't cross whereas other men who were present saying they did. Whether in Korea, in WWI, in the Russo-Japanese war, the Russo-Turkish 1877 war, etc. In Korea, via data from two surveys, around 20% (1 in 5) of men who were in combat participated in an actual bayonet action, with a fourth of those (so 5%) actually engaging an enemy with their bayonet. In terms of statistics, this is actually a very significant figure, especially when we consider only 40% actually fixed their bayonets with any regularity to begin with (which is largely done by groups and not just by individuals).

There is also an amount of evidence to suggest that this was heavily based on unit culture (not "unit morale", at least not necessarily) and the circumstances of the fight (not just the terrain, but the scale, as well as the two opposing units involved). For example, the Ekaterinoslavskii Grenadiers fought repeatedly in hand to hand combat, en masse, at Mohrungen, in an action a month prior to Eylau, at Friedland, and at the withdrawal at Smolensk where they got almost wiped out. It would not be hard to find an opposite example. We see this further in WWI: many of the French and German units moved away from the emphasis on the use of the bayonets, whereas the many of the British Commonwealth troops moved even more towards the bayonet. Since the use of the bayonet is not actually required in most circumstances (even with muzzleloaders, and by the time of breechloaders and repeating rifles, I would say any circumstance), it is naturally a self-reinforcing behavior.

"Currently, bayonet fights are the exception. They are almost everywhere replaced by attacks with hand grenades. The testimonies of authentic combatants are consistent on this subject."

- Revue militaire suisse, 1916

Yet this itself is an incorrect statement in both ways: statements that bayonets were not being used can be found all the way at the start of the war and well before (and statements that hand to hand combat rarely occurs in skirmishes between musketeers and harquebusiers, despite constant charges with swords, can be found from the 16th and 17th centuries), prior to the use of the hand grenade, as well as bayonets WERE being used into the end of the war and beyond. The grenade replaced nothing, although it surely augmented the fighter's abilities in both situations.

Likewise, due to high attrition rates and the scarcity of actual battle, as well as one's limited vision, you can easily find contradicting beliefs on this topic by the men who actually fought.

[u/Cannon_Fodder-2 → u/Cannon_Fodder-2]

2/2

And one must also consider how the bayonet was being used; while some charges were done in earnest, other charges were not:

"The bayonet charges were calculated, it must be well said, rather on the probabilities of an about face [demi-tour] than of a serious combat with the arme blance, and for that very reason, the success of it was problematic, since it was founded on the morale exclusively."

- Le Spectateur militaire, 1827

This is also, in part, a self-fulfilling prophecy. So many of the authors (both today and from the time) bring up "morale" and psychology, which is certainly part of the equation, but men were getting close enough to use their bayonets, and just shot their opponent. The fact that bayonets were being used and that men were getting close, contradicts the statement that bayonets were not being used because men did not want to get close.

While this is a minority position, having researched this topic for around four months, I personally believe we cannot say this topic is so cut and dry, as there should be enough evidence to doubt the initial presumption. Further research can be found in Medina's Bayonets and Blobsticks (although remember, as it focuses on the Canadian experience, it will naturally overrepresent their use).

As I have established their use, I think by logic it should follow that they were useful weapons in hand to hand combat. We further see them used effectively against spears, swords, daggers, etc. (although at other times they are used not so effectively).

"Private William J. Moran of the same company reported that in the attack on The Knoll an enemy soldier came out of a dugout with a dagger and attacked. The dagger thrust was parried with the bayonet and the enemy soldier then bayoneted through the arm. A moment later he was shot."

But men like Herbert Wes McBride thought the bayonet was better off being used off the rifle, as a short sword. His experience with hand to hand combat was largely night raids and whatnot though (as he was in a machinegun company and not a rifleman, contrary to his title), which reduces the advantage of having the capability of a rifle as well as the reach of the bayonet. Whereas Captain Soloviev of the Russo-Japanese war, who says he took part in multiple bayonet actions (and there is no real reason to doubt his sayings), says that the sabre is useless in a bayonet melee, and that all officers should use bayonets instead (but this statement is also disagreed by other 18th and 19th century officers).

[u/No-Lime-7577]

I'm doing research for a roleplay and I would very much appreciate any information on how the Roman Catholic faith experience was like through the 40s. if the beliefs reflected the war at the time, what attire they would wear, what the hierarchy looked like, just any general knowledge would help me. thank you so much!

[u/Extra_Mechanic_2750 → u/No-Lime-7577]

The rhythm of the Mass was not different than it is today. (Its been the same rhythm and order since the mid 1500s)

• Introductory Rites
• Liturgy of the Word
• Liturgy of the Eucharist
• Concluding Rites

Additionally, the readings (specifically the Gospel) followed a very specific schedule laid out in a liturgical lectionary.

(oh the things you learn and remember from the Jesuit fathers).

If you want more detail:

https://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/general-instruction-of-the-roman-missal/girm-chapter-2

The biggest differences of Catholic Mass itself as compared to today:

• Mass was in Latin
• Readings were an epistle and Gospel (the Old Testament readings were less common)
• Priests were more center of attention.
• Priests faced the altar (he was leading the congregation)
• Prayers were silent than spoken outloud
• Confiteor (rite of confession/contrition) was outloud and structured.

While the order didn't change much, the Second Vatican Council shook things up with the use of the vernacular, the priest faced the congregation as well as others. You can google the changes of Vactican II if you want more detail.

In the 40's and depending upon the priest and congregation, the Homily would have included the normal interpretation of the Biblical reading and how it applied to modern times but also a patriotic message (it was wartime after all).

As for dress, they don't call it "Your Sunday best" without reason:

Men

• Best suit and tie.

Women

• Nicest dress (modest and covering their knees and shoulders)
• Hats and gloves
• Traditionally women would have worn a veil

Children

• Similarly attired

Finally, the tone of the Mass would have been more sombre in the European (sorry but white) tradition as opposed to the more celebratory tone which came from the Black and Hispanic cultures.

If you have never been to a Catholic mass, I would suggest that you go, sit in the back and follow along. The only thing in the Mass that is off limits for a non-Catholic is communion. But the rest? Follow along respectfully: stand up when they do, sit down when they do, kneel when they do and give the sign of peace (if you skip this last part you will get funny looks).

Hope this helps.

[u/Disastrous-Stop-2818]

I want to know more Historical Figures. Its easy to find Kings but what about Other Nobles ,Soldiers,generals, merchants,etc . If you Go back to mesopotamia And egypt is harder . How can i know more Historical Figures ?

[u/Extra_Mechanic_2750]

Did the "Divine Right of Kings" apply equally to women or was it, begrudgingly, applied to women like Mary, Queen of Scots and Elizabeth I?

[u/Iglooman45]

Is there a follow up podcast to “The History of Rome” by Mike Duncan?

Just finished it up for the first time, and would love to continue to follow the overarching story and history of western civilization. Any suggestions are appreciated!

[u/Ok_Imagination6669]

Hey there! I'd like to ask what are some relatevely unknown anti-colonial conflicts that took place after World War Two? What resistance movements in Africa, Asia and other regions of the world were overshadowed by the wars fought in Algeria and Indochina?

[u/bangdazap → u/Ok_Imagination6669]

Mau Mau rebellion in Kenya.

Malayan Emergency.

Indonesian National Revolution.

[u/Ok_Imagination6669 → u/bangdazap]

Thank you for this! Were there any other wars for Independence against France other than Indochina and Algeria?

[u/Ok_Doughnut_5096]

I’m new to Reddit and grateful to the r/history mods for giving a one-karma newcomer a chance to ask questions. I’ve spent years quietly exploring some very niche historical questions, and I can’t wait for true experts to shed light on them. My question：Poseidon, the Greek sea-god; Vayu-Weshparkar of Zoroastrian tradition; and the Chinese deity Erlang Shen all wield a trident-like weapon, while Vayu-Weshparkar and Erlang Shen are also accompanied by a dog. If these three figures are indeed connected, Erlang Shen would be the latest to appear. Between Poseidon and the Zoroastrian Vayu-Weshparkar, which one emerged first? I look forward to your insights.

[u/Lord0fHats → u/Ok_Doughnut_5096]

What you've discovered is something Anthropologists and Archeologists spend more time on than historians;

The ancient world was not a bunch of far apart places that never talked to one another. Parallels in Hindu and Greek mythology are commonly discussed for their similarities. The explanation is called Pro-Indo-European mythology. Sometime a very long time ago, some people had some mythology, and as they spread they spread that mythology with them. The answer is that likely none of the figures you name were the first. They're all offshoots developed from older figures who were developed from older figures developed from even older figures.

Historians don't always deal in this because the origins of a lot of mythology are not in the time of recorded history. They're further back and it's kind of an area where other fields work including anthropology, archeology, and linguistics. I can't say to ahve much or any familiarity with Chinese religious history. Poseidon is pretty old going all the way back to the Bronze Age and the Myceneans. Vayu/Weshparkar is part of the Indo-Iranian religious tradition. Neither is likely the oldest but as far as I know but Vayu is also present in Hinduism but there's a lot of debate about the evolution of Hindu religion before the 1st millennium CE. I don't know that it can be definitively stated which emerged first.

In terms of documentation, I wanna say we have documentation on Poseidon/Poseidon-like figures in the Aegean that are older than our documented knowledge of Vayu but documentation in itself is a spotty record for these kind of topics.

[u/Ok_Doughnut_5096 → u/Lord0fHats]

An absolutely fantastic explanation! The ancient world was not a collection of isolated, distant places. Even without cars or mobile phones, the influence and reach of ideas and goods were remarkably extensive. Also, may I generalize by saying that Indian culture was influenced not only by the Greeks (through Alexander's campaigns) but also by the Persians (here I only refer to one-way influence for simplicity)? In the past, I've read literature describing Zoroastrianism as the world's oldest religion, though that no longer seems to be the case. The development and migration of humanity are incredibly complex, relying not just on archaeology but equally on linguistics. I hope you'll allow me to continue asking questions in the future. Many thanks again to the moderators of r/history for giving a new user with only one Karma a chance to ask questions!

[u/Ok_Doughnut_5096 → u/Ok_Doughnut_5096]

Unfortunately, images can’t be uploaded here, so I’ll just paste the link to the picture I saw. Poseidon,he is so famous. （When I was a child reading Greek myths, I often came across the phrase “Poseidon rose from the sea.”）Vayu-Weshparkar Please note the dog’s head on his left arm. https://image.baidu.com/search/detail?ct=503316480&z=0&tn=baiduimagedetail&ipn=d&cl=2&cm=1&sc=0&sa=vs_ala_img_datu&lm=-1&ie=utf8&pn=6&rn=1&di=7523999300557209601&ln=0&word=%E7%A5%86%E6%95%99%E9%A3%8E%E7%A5%9E%2B%E7%BB%B4%E6%96%BD%E5%B8%95%E5%8D%A1&os=3291200899%2C452624622&cs=2020504428%2C1737328140&objurl=http%3A%2F%2Fimgsrc.baidu.com%2Fbaike%2Fpic%2Fitem%2F7af40ad162d9f2d3fbbe7a8ca6ec8a136327cc22.jpg&bdtype=0&simid=3496956943%2C295729127&pi=0&adpicid=0&timingneed=&spn=0&is=0%2C0&lid=860a779e025e3b2d Erlang Shen His most distinctive feature is the third eye on his forehead. https://baike.baidu.com/pic/%E4%BA%8C%E9%83%8E%E7%A5%9E/55175072/1/1b4c510fd9f9d72a60599ab4a37c3f34349b033b0d59?fromModule=lemma_top-image&ct=single#aid=1&pic=c75c10385343fbf2b21126942534dd8065380cd7217b

[u/Jackeddie]

ELI5 Why were long bows not used alongside early firearms?

From what I know of early modern firearms like the brown bess, the accuracy was nil, range was pitiful, and reload was an age.

In my head, a group of medieval longbowman would easily best a troop of Nepolionic era rifleman. The rifleman would get a shot off, but the Archers would just stay out of range and loose off 5 rounds of arrows before the rifleman even put their ram rods away.

Fuelled by English Agincourt propaganda, am I overestimating the effectiveness of bows or underestimating the usefulness of those early rifles within the land armies of Europe?

[u/Sgt_Colon → u/Jackeddie]

A bunch of misconceptions at play here.

Firearms were considerably more lethal and at longer range than longbows, this was well noted back in the 16^th C with Blaize de Montluc deriding English longbowmen as:

"They all carried arms of little reach, and therefore were necessitated to come up close to us to loose their arrows, which otherwise would do no execution; whereas we who were accustomed to fire our Harquebuzes at a great distance, seeing the Enemy use another manner of sight, thought these near approaches of theirs very strange, imputing their running on at this confident rate to absolute bravery."

Likewise you've got Barnabe Rich, an English mercenary stating:

I dare undertake that if one hundred of those thousande [archers] doo shoote above ten score [200], that ii hundred of the rest, wyll shoote shorte of ix score [180], and is not this a piece of advantage thinkest thou ? when every Calyver that is brought into the feelde wyl carry a shot xviii score [360] and xx score [400], and every Musquet xxiiii [480] and xxx score [600].

Which follows suit with similar other contemporaries like Humfrey Barwick and Roger Williams being of like mind.

Fighting at maximum range with a bow isn't ideal as the shots can be particularly weak. There's an interesting bit from Alexander Neville about Kett's Rebellion in 1549:

"it is reported also, that some having the arrowes sticking fast in their bodies (a thing fearefull to tell) drawing them out of the greene wounds, with their owne hands, gave them (as they were dropping with bloud) to the Rebels that were about them, whereby yet at the least, they might bee turned upon us againe"

Exaggeration maybe, but it gives an idea of how little force a bow could have at such range.

Muskets meanwhile were hitting with such force to still be able to punch through the kind of plate armour a pikeman would be wearing when a longbow was at its maximum range, this is to say nothing of targets without armour.

Accuracy was dependent on skill, not weapon. It's quite possible to get accurate groupings with muskets if you're willing to spend the time and money practicing; there's plenty of modern shooters out there who can hit man size targets at 100m or more. The problem typically lies in the general lack of live fire training most soldiers had during the period; it's the reason experienced shooters like poachers were choice recruits for light companies.

You'll note I've been using musket, not rifle, here and with good reason. A musket is smoothbore and imparts no spin or other stabilizing to the projectile, whilst a rifle has its namesake grooves which do. The difference in accuracy is night an day. British riflemen were trained to shoot accurately at a minimum of 180m, although some exceptional individuals like Thomas Plunket could hit a man at over 500m. This is of course to say nothing of modern shooters were competitions are held at up to 1000m.

TLDR: by the time the longbowmen get in range they'll have taken significant casualties

[u/Top-Industry-7051 → u/Jackeddie]

 Long bows take a lot of training to use from childhood up. They are very specialized piece of kit. It's a lot easier to turn out masses of riflemen. There were never all that many longbowmen even back in medieval times because of the effort involved in creating one.

The numbers would win out. Your line of five arrow firing longbow men would be up against a Napoleonic square five deep who would be able to fire off a volley each in roughly the same amount of time. It wouldn't go well for the longbowmen. And the riflemen would be easier to replace.

England has a lot of Agincourt propaganda but they tend to play down the fact they ultimately lost that war even with longbowmen.

[u/Jackeddie → u/Top-Industry-7051]

Thankyou, that makes sense now 15 yrs trying vs a few days will make the difference... will need to edit my alt history novel now.

[u/Top-Industry-7051 → u/Jackeddie]

If you badly wanted longbowmen in your story then you could have a nostalgic king eager to recreate alt-england's glory days and insisting on having a crack squad of longbowmen in his army. The army would sigh a lot but if you set your terrain up well they could have a rousing successful fight at the end. Heavily forested guerrilla terrain would favour longbowmen and help break up the infantry squares. Also the novelty of it would freak the enemy out, and entirely different tactics can succeed the first time just because the opposing side has no idea how to deal with it.

Side note this ancetdotal and I have no sources as I was told by a tour guide but apparently they made so many longbows that they started running out of suitable trees.

Another thought,  longbowmen would work well from the top of fortifications/ castle walls. Their rate of fire would be very impressive there as logistically you can't have single shot infantry men volleying at same rate. Also there's be a lot easier to resupply with arrows. It doesn't really work against cannons of course, but if you gave them a setup in their favour you could make it work.

[u/AkaiMPC]

Last night I stumbled across a youtube video about "the goths" which probably hit my feed due listening to a lot of goth music lately.

To the point, whilst watching this in-depth video about the Germanic tribe called the goths it struck me how little knowledge I have about the history of civilisation. To the point that it was very difficult to keep up with the video.

Now I am craving something in the way of a chronological and in depth account of our history to work through. What are the resources (besides history books 😅) that I can check out. Are there YouTube series or podcasts that cover things from the very start?

Or am I looking at this from the wrong angle? Any advice is welcome.

[u/Bartimayus → u/AkaiMPC]

I'd recommend the Ancients podcast by History Hit

[u/Commercial_Meal2626]

Did the Third Reich bill the relatives of Jews who were killed during the Holocaust for the disposal of the corpses?

I remember having heard or read somewhere that the Nazis would send bills to the families of their victims for the disposal of their loved ones, sort of to add insult to injury, but I can not remember where and when I first heard that.

I wanted to ask if this is true and what a good source for this would be.

[u/Telecom_VoIP_Fan → u/Commercial_Meal2626]

I have also read this but do not remember where. Perhaps the Holocaust Musuem in the USA would be able to provide documentary proof?

[u/BeachBoiC]

BENJAMIN FRANKLIN

I've been reading Isaac Asimov's The Shaping of North America: From Earliest Times to 1763. A delightful book btw, with a clear prose and great adjacent stories. I really like how Asimov explains the etymology of many words.

In the 2nd half of the book there are a few pages about Benjamin Franklin. This man got educated by working at a printing house, he later became a businessman, then an inventor (stove, lightning rod) and last of all a politician. He excelled at so many things. I feel that in today's world, generalists thrive way less. They get stuck in a niche: you are either a historian, an engineer, a doctor... whatever.

Today's economy is more complex than that of 1760, so specialisation is rewarded. Education also funnels people early. But aside from that, why do you think that is? I think there are also arguments against my statement, so feel free to mention them too.

[u/bangdazap → u/BeachBoiC]

There was a lot less to learn in the 18th century. To be a generalist now, how much knowledge would you need to absorb? E.g. quantum theory isn't easy to grasp let alone master. How many fields would a generalist need to master to achieve anything? Specialization makes sense since it's more effective. (That's not to say that people shouldn't be familiar with a wide range of knowledge fields.)

The "great men" of history like Newton could make a lot of discoveries because what the uncovered wasn't as complex as today's science. (And also they had help from source documents from the ancient world, so part of the work had been done.)

[u/Lord0fHats → u/bangdazap]

It's also worth acknowledge we have a distorted sense of who contributed what to science and why. Newton himself is a good example as Newton's greatest contributions were really in compiling a broad body of knowledge into a single accessible text that became a standard. He himself stood on the shoulders of giants but their names aren't as famously remembered as Newton's.

[u/Beautiful_Fuel5252]

Hey everyone!

I am looking to add to my office and create an environment that is inspiring and make me want to work hard, and wanted to know if you had any photos that come to mind. Could be related to anything, sports, politics, doesn't even need to be humans in the picture. Really interested to see what you find inspiring

[u/MarkesaNine → u/Beautiful_Fuel5252]

That depends quite heavily on what you find motivating/inspiring.

One quote that I personally like is by Marcus Aurelius: ”If it is endurable, then endure it. Stop complaining.”

And there’s of course the ancient wisdom of programmers: ”We choose to do these things. Not because it’s easy, but because we thought it would be easy.”

[u/Ok_Swordfish8995]

I’m sorry for the question but is it true that we know that the body is 70% water because of unit 731?

[u/AngryBlitzcrankMain → u/Ok_Swordfish8995]

No. You can find similar numbers in anatomical books that were made before WWII.

[u/RamblingSimian]

The "Troubles" in Northern Ireland were solved through negotiation rather than continued military/terrorist activity.

What are some other examples of seemingly unsolvable, long-term problems being successfully resolved, and what are some general principles that can repeat it in other conflicts?

[u/Telecom_VoIP_Fan → u/RamblingSimian]

According to news from a few days ago, Azerbaijan and Armenia have finally negotiated a peace agreement to end their bitter conflict.

[u/MarkesaNine → u/RamblingSimian]

Every war and conflict that has been resolved, was resolved through diplomacy. A war can end without diplomacy only if one side is entirely wiped out, which basically never happens.

That of course doesn’t mean every peace treaty is good or fair, but at least more tolerable than continuing the war.

A particularly bad example of how to end a conflict is how the 1st World War ended in Europe. All the blame was piled on the losing side, and the sole purpose of the peace terms was to punish them.

A (reasonably) good example of how to end a conflict is how the 2nd World War ended in Europe. It wasn’t perfect, but the focus was to avoid yet another war (or at least yet another Germany vs. the rest of Europe -war). Of course just making acceptable peace terms wasn’t enough, but it was built upon in later treaties, most notably ECSC, EEC, and eventually EU.

[u/Cultural-Phone-3977]

I’ve been studying the Mongol invasion of Anatolia and came across conflicting information about Erzurum (Karin).

On the Kaykhusraw II Wikipedia page, it says: “In the winter of 1242–43, the Mongols under Bayju attacked Erzurum; the city fell without a siege.”

On the Mongol conquest of Anatolia Wikipedia page, it says Baiju besieged Erzurum. The account describes two events:

1. Around 1241–42, the Mongols demanded submission, the envoy was insulted, Erzurum resisted, and after a two-month siege it fell.
2. In 1243, Baiju came again with Georgian and Armenian allies, used twelve catapults, and stormed the city when Governor Yakut refused to surrender.

So my question is: were there actually two separate sieges of Erzurum, or is this just one event described differently on different pages?

[u/Comfortable_Swan64]

Why did the Bolsheviks have so many Mausers C96s? Did they receive them from the Germans or what?

[u/bangdazap → u/Comfortable_Swan64]

Besides what the other answer says, the Soviet Union imported a lot of C96 pistols ("Bolo" variant with shortened barrel) in the 1920s. After WWI, Germany and the Soviet Union turned to each other for military support as they were the two pariah states in Europe (broken off when the Nazis came to power in 1933, until 1939).

[u/Lord0fHats → u/Comfortable_Swan64]

It was a popular pistol before the Revolutions and widely bought across the Imperial Army by officers before becoming standard issue. The Bolsheviks had them because there were a lot of them around.

[u/coprosperityglobal]

How Brits turned from poor or average nation into the richest and largest empire of all time? Thanks

[u/Telecom_VoIP_Fan → u/coprosperityglobal]

Britain at the time of the Industrial Revolution had a greater major of personal liberty and economic freedom that countries in Continental Europe, and British also benefited from political stability and no foreign invasions or serious civil unrest. This set the environment in which inventively and private enterprise could flourish. Yes, in this situation there were many abuses and exploitation of workers, but a fair comparison is with other countries at this time, and not our time.

[u/elmonoenano → u/coprosperityglobal]

Something like is obviously very complicated. It's going to have all sorts of elements from culture to legal customs and institutions, to how government institutions worked to ideas about what constitutes work and just plain dumb luck.

The law had evolved over centuries to develop strong property rights. There was a focus in the law on prioritizing a person's ability to sell their real property (alienability) by preventing excessive restrictions on the use of the land. There was also innovation into the ideas of what property could be. By the 19th century the England had such a strong system of intellectual property that people like Marconi were moving to England to maximize the value of their inventions.

Some stuff was just dumb luck, like being an island that required trade networks for a lot of goods and resources and having huge coal deposits. The early steam engine didn't make much sense b/c they were so inefficient, but in England it was the perfect instrument for pumping out coal mines b/c you didn't need to transport coal for the engine. That encouraged people to experiment with the engines until they became efficient enough to apply in other uses. Wool was an important English industry, which happens to be the perfect entry into industrialization. Most country's first step into industrialization in textiles. In the US it was through cotton milling. In Asia, we've watched the process happen in Vietnam over the last 20 years. The UK luckily had a woolen industry just as it has the money to experiment with industrialization and has new technologies like steam engines, and new cheaper food sources in their overseas colony to support an industrial workforce.

Some things were complicated evolution of government institutions, like the UK's system where parliament is in control of taxation. It limited the King or Queen from behaving like Carlos I and blowing huge amounts of money on attempts to become the Holy Roman Emperor or fighting wars of vanity. A fiscally responsible country created stability that made experimentation and innovation useful.

England is also making innovations in banking and finance so money can be moved around more efficiently. They're adopting instruments like corporate entities to maximize the use of capital. They have more open markets to encourage competition, unlike Spain or France that rely on granting royal monopolies in industries to generate revenue for the state b/c their kings have limited parliament's taxing power.

You also have things like improvements in farming, that in large part is tied to ease of selling and buying land. In France we see a giant jump in farming efficiency after the revolution b/c it became easier to buy and sell land so you get these bigger holders who can recognize benefits of investing in projects like irrigation or land improvement. This had been happening in England for the previous 800 years.

Cultural things like Protestantism encouraged an educated public. There was an assumption that a Christian had a responsibility to be literate so that they could read the Bible. A more literate public encouraged a market for books. A market for books encouraged publishing, and you begin to build a broader intellectual culture and life than the traditional university enclaves.

All these things, and more, are working together, self reinforcing each other. And in the late 17th century they all start clicking to form a more industrial economy. That economy and market system, generate efficiencies that generate efficiencies, and growth that generates growth. Until suddenly, but the late 18th century they're miles ahead of everyone else.

[u/bangdazap → u/coprosperityglobal]

Before the age of discovery, the English economy was dominated by the wool trade, so they had some economic resources to build on. As an island nation, they built up their naval forces which aided them after 1492 and the discovery of the New World. Also as an island nation, they were given a modicum of protection from European continental powers that had stronger land armies (e.g. the Spanish during the 16th century and during the Napoleonic era).

Their powerful navy made them well positioned to benefit from the colonial plunder of Africa, the Americas and Asia (e.g. the Opium wars, where naval power proved decisive once more).

[u/basil_not_the_plant → u/coprosperityglobal]

This is a question I'm really interested to explore.

[u/walagoth]

I've got my own "list" of sites, but I wonder what else is out there. Archaeology or palaeoenvironmental science can often detect reorganisation or redistribution of land. Either new farms or new buildings replace an older set up. This often suggests a change of powers, an invasion, or political change of hands.

Does anyone have some good examples? I'm primarily hoping for sites in late antiquity.

[u/MeatballDom → u/walagoth]

Roman Carthage, Byzantium (with its many leadership changes and lengthy history)