I'm listening to the original Dracula and during the ending Mina makes mention to changing horses at several times. How did this work? I understand that horses have a limited range until they tire and need to be switched, but was this a service paid in advance? What happened to these horses? Do they just live at the new place now? This is something I've been puzzled by in other books as well.

My understanding is that drinking alcohol is almost universal across human history, but I feel like we only achieved a good sense of what alcohol actually is, and how it interacts with the brain, very recently in historical terms. What did people think was going on before then?

Hi everyone,

In the United States it is incredibly normal to wear sweatpants, athletic clothes, and even pajamas in public. This is not the case in many other parts of the world. Specifically, people often say that Americans "dress down" much more than people from Europe and East Asia.

From my knowledge of American history, it doesn't seem like Americans always dressed more casually than their counterparts in the rest of the world. I would imagine that during the conformist time of the 1950s, Americans were "dressing up" just as much as people from other countries. When did Americans start dressing so much more casually? And why did Americans begin "dressing down" at higher rates than people from other countries?

Jewish women are frequently mentioned in antiquity sources as owning estates, livestock, inheritances, and other assets you’d traditionally associate with men in this time period. Was this especially unique to Roman Judea before the destruction of the Temple?

I'm currently reading Critical Lessons by Dr. Ned Noddings, and in her introduction she states the following:

When the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, many public school teachers were forbidden to discuss the war in their classrooms. [...] Usually it is accomplished by defining the curriculum so narrowly and specifically that genuinely controversial issues simply do not arise.

My question: Were teachers ever actively forbidden or discouraged to talk about the Iraq war circa 2003?

Thanks!

Edit: I'm referring to teachers within the US public school system.

As an American Ashkenazi Jewish person living in America, I know that my family migrated from the pale of settlement to the U.S. in the early 20th century. Would my ancestors have known their own migration history, as in what led their own ancestors to settle in Eastern Europe?

My wife and I disagree about how to interpret Franklin D. Roosevelt’s policies towards the Jewish community / refugees.

I argue that his administration’s refusal to admit many Jewish refugees, alongside widespread antisemitism in the United States at the time, raises questions about whether FDR himself held antisemitic views.

My wife argues that these policies do not necessarily reflect personal prejudice against Jews, but rather his focus on American economic recovery and domestic priorities, even at the expense of accepting refugees.

What does the historical evidence tell us about FDR’s personal views toward Jews?

I understand this requires some likely subjective definition of what a "major state" is. And maybe even what a peasant is.

I’m curious about the historical reasons behind certain naming patterns that are relatively common among Afro Americans, such as DeShawn, DeAndre, Drequan, and Dequavious.

When and how did this naming convention develop historically? Does it have roots in African naming traditions, colonisation, the development of distinct African American cultural identities, or something else entirely?

Hello! I am trying to learn more about how Christianity came to be in the British isles and Scotland before the formalization of the Anglican Church as was known to be from Henry the 8th till now.

Would love to know if it came from Celtic Christianity and or from the desert Mothers and Fathers?

Thanks!

I was just thinking how our dating culture is a result of the industrialized/economic environment of modern day (alongside many other things), but Russia not only industrialized rapidly but also went on a very different economic path than most countries when it industrialized. Despite Stalin still promoting patriarchal values, women were still being given education and opportunities they other wouldn’t have in the old Tsardom, thus more independence. Not to mention the massive amount of deaths during the wars + the more restrictive state of the USSR, I’m just wondering how a woman would even select a partner in the USSR. I doubt it’d be as easy as going to a bar or meeting someone at a coffee shop. As much as we’d like to “forget” nowadays, healthy heterosexual relationships are fundamental for ANY society to properly function, so clearly there was a way to find love in the USSR. Doubt the Soviets were against romance given the amount of novels they have on the subject

I could list a bunch of ideas Ive been thinking of but rather trust an expert here than google in this god forsaken AI internet world.

I’m interested in the experiences and approaches of historians who are also practicing believers in a religion (any tradition). Historical method relies on empirical evidence, primary sources, archaeology, and critical analysis, yet many religious traditions contain narratives that appear to conflict with the consensus findings of history, archaeology, or the natural sciences.

Just some examples I have are below:

• Creation accounts versus deep time (age of the Earth and universe)
• Global flood narratives versus the lack of supporting geological evidence
• The biblical Exodus and conquest of Canaan versus the archaeological record
• Specific details in the Gospels (and the resurrection) versus what critical historical method can establish about the historical Jesus
• Traditional early Islamic narratives versus the picture suggested by the earliest non-Muslim sources and archaeology

As someone who is not religious myself I’m just really interested in finding anything out in relation to this topic, it’s something I’ve always pondered.

I always hear as the main justification for the Civil War the fact that the South's economy depended on slavery and would collapse without it.

However, Congress passed, and Lincoln said he supported, the Corwin Amendment which said:

No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corwin_Amendment

- end quote -

So Lincoln was willing to enshrine protection for slavery in the US constitution. That being the case, why would the South risk Civil War against a much stronger North by seceding instead of at least waiting to see if the Corwin Amendment became part of the Constitution?

Is it because Soviet Union did and it automatically defaults to that or did it have a mass protest or corruption for it to crumble in 1993 ?

As a Nigerian I hear a lot of discourse on where the dish, Jollof Rice comes from. Many West African nations claim to have been the "true" inventors of it. The wolof people are those that claim it's origin the most, due the fact that there was a historical Kingdom of Jollof. They claim that the dish spread through the Niger river trade, but many other nations like in Mali claim that they invented it because empires like the Songhai had major control over it.

All of these seem national-pride based level of biases, so what do we factually know about where the dish originated and why this one dish became a touchstone of pride for many West African nations to this day, even causing diplomatic and political incidents over it?

I assume many house slaves overhead discussions and had atleast basic understanding of the political debates around abolition, Lincoln's campaign, etc.

What about slaves in the fields? How much would they know about domestic politics, in particular stuff about Lincoln? Did any of them discuss the possiblity of him winning, slavery legally ending in their lifetime, a possible civil war?

From my impression, 1790s Europe was devoutly Christian everywhere. There were cracks appearing in the structure during the Enlightenment in the form of philosophers and intellectuals like Voltaire attacking Christianity, but I assume these were a minuscule group that had very little effect on the average person(apparently only half of the French people were literate during this timeframe, so that would limit their influence too).

My question is: how did France become so fanatically anti-Christian during this timeframe (mid-1790s), following deistic principles(and also maybe atheistic), and why wasn't there a nationwide uprising because of it(I just know of the War_in_the_Vendee and smaller incidents). And why weren't there similar popular anti-Christian outbursts in the rest of Europe during this timeframe? Even from an intellectual perspective, say Swedish Enlightenment thinkers worked within the framework of the Lutheran Church, as opposed to French ones who were fiercely anti-Catholic.

There is a common sentiment that Finland was betrayed by Sweden during the second world war, since Sweden did not commit troops and didnt enter as a active combatant. Instead Sweden remained more passive but still offered major support through material and economic means aswell as accepting finnish refugees.

The finnish military was in a weak state before the war and was severly underequppied, Sweden donated large amounts of all sorts of equipment which was used to equip the finnish army and airforce.

Obviously Finland fared aswell as they did through their own enormous effort and sacrifice, but would it have been possible to do without the support offered by Sweden?

EDIT: Hi All! Thanks for the excellent questions!! It is 2PM where I am. I'm signing off to do some work and walk my dog, but I'll answer any later-arising questions over the next few days and weeks as I see them.

Hi r/AskHistorians! I'm Mary X. Mitchell. I am an assistant professor in the Federated Department of History at the New Jersey Institute of Technology and Rutgers University - Newark. I earned my JD and worked as a lawyer before studying for a PhD in history and sociology of science. My new book, Unsettling Sovereignty, was just released by the University of Chicago Press. It is the product of about thirteen years of reading, research, and writing. You can buy it directly from the press here, or purchase it from your favorite bookseller. You can learn more about my work and other publications on my website.

I can't wait to answer your questions!

Here is the Press's summary of the book:

Marshall Islanders and their ancestral lands and waters played important roles in reshaping the United States’ offshore power, state sovereignty, and the international politics of decolonization.

In the years following World War II, the United States conducted sixty-seven devastating nuclear blasts in the Marshall Islands—yet the archipelago was never a US territory. Working through the United Nations, US diplomats engineered a new, one-of-a-kind extraterritorial status, called strategic trusteeship, to control the Native lands, waters, and peoples of the Marshall, Caroline, and Northern Mariana Islands. Strategic trusteeship permitted the US to militarize a vast expanse of Western Oceania. This novel and racialized legal form of international dependency was integral to US nuclear weapons detonations and damage in the region.

In Unsettling Sovereignty, Mitchell recounts this untold legal history, exploring how nuclear weapons changed claims and practices of sovereignty from the 1940s to the present. US nuclear blasting in the Marshall Islands troubled conventional renderings of state sovereignty under international law. The explosions, disastrous for Marshallese communities and their ancestral atolls, also caused hazardous nuclear fallout, which spread around the globe. Islanders and their allies turned to law, using legal wrangling over blasting and fallout to raise new questions about the location, time, and subjects of state violence in a period of decolonization; the intersections between race, Indigeneity, and wide-scale technogenic harm; and the pitfalls and unfulfilled promises of international law. Mitchell shows that the Marshallese people and their lands and waters were, and remain, central to redefining sovereignty in an era of boundless pollution and climate change.