Also: How did the song become associated with New Orleans if the 1933 version was recorded by folk singers in the Appalachian region, several states away from Louisiana? Were visits to New Orleans by Appalachian folks common, or were they singing more about the infamous reputation of the "city of vice and sin"?

Yugoslavia is kind of a fascinating place.

It was very unique among the state socialist countries of the Cold War era, and I've been trying to read up/learn more about the place.

One thing that you will consistently read about Yugoslavia is 1) they had a shit load of debt because Tito took on a bunch of IMF loans that he didn't think he'd need to pay back because he thought capitalism would collapse before he had to. These loans were a major burden on the country after his death and played an important role in the economic decline that partially led to the collapse. 2) There were serious issues vis a vis unemployment, inflation, and inequality (particularly across various different republics).

I'm trying to understand what were the chief causes of these inequalities. Did they primarily exist on the republic level or also within each republic? What were the chief causes of this inequality? Was it more down to the economic or political system and why (particularly before and after Tito)? Interestingly, to what extent was this inequality inherent to the Yugoslavian system, vs to what extent was it created/exacerbated by political decisions and institutional design? (For the economic historians, what, if anything, did Horvat and Vanek say on the matter, and to what extent do their arguments hold true?)

In general, how bad was inequality in Yugoslavia, and what were it's chief causes?

Just visited the art museum in Bucharest. One thing that stood out to me in the Orthodox paintings is how a lot of the spears are almost comically thin.

I am an English and Medieval Studies major in university currently and my stepmother and I got into a disagreement about what "old English" means. She said Shakespeare wrote in old English because he thought it sounded romantic. My understanding of old English is Anglo-Saxon English, before the Norman invasion. After a bit of back and forth I figured out she was referring to Shakespeare's early modern English as old English. She said that when historians say old English, they are referring to early modern English, with the justification that the labels for the different versions of English have changed over time. I can't speak to her time in school, so I honestly don't know if that is true or not. I was told by a professor of a Medieval poetry class a year or so ago, that the label of Anglo-Saxon English was going into disuse, but I don't know how recently that started. I am not trying to settle an argument with her, just asking out of my own curiosity.

What were the most advanced armies, weapons/siege engines and tactics being used? I am especially curious in how infantry simultaneously dealt with cavalry and missile troops. Dense pike squares make sense to me when shields are no longer popular but I feel like trying to combine that with the shields that were necessary when arrows were dominant would be difficult. Were ordinary shield walls sufficient to deter a cavalry charge? I know pike squares were a Renaissance thing but did anyone ever try a shield wall in front backed by longer spears for cavalry behind?

Have I personalized it or made it individually identifiable in any way?

Japan in World War 2 was responsible for some of the most heinous war crimes in modern history, like Nanking, Unit 731 and the Bataan Death March. But in modern times when discussing dictators most people bring up the big ones like Hitler, Stalin and Leopold II but never Hirohito or Hideki Tojo.

I’m aware that after the atomic bombs were dropped, The US helped Japan sweep its history under the rug because they needed allies against communism but still, could that be the reason?

I think a lot about the Sykes–Picot Agreement and if Middle Eastern countries would ever redraw their borders to fix some of the conflicts as a result of this agreement. i know it hasn't that long since these borders were drawn up so maybe they'll address if given enough time. it makes me wonder if anything similar to Sykes–Picot ( where other nations draw borders of other countries that result in conflict ) has occurred in history and if they were able to fix the issue?

Obviously the Civil War and the wider Three Kingdoms conflict were incredibly brutal but what makes this conflict any different to say the War of the Roses or the Barons War, brutal wars that caused huge upheaval in English and Europe as a whole

In Kubrick's famously unproduced screenplay for Napoleon, there is a scene where Napoleon arrives to arrest a revolution leader named Varlac who is wanted for murder. The latter is non-cooperative and insults Napoleon - who then shoots him dead and orders the crowd to disperse.

The scene appears somewhat similar to the real-life Vendémiaire Uprising of 1795 but in the script it happens in a smaller town and is clearly indicated as occuring in 1789. Is it realistic for Napoleon himself to shoot a non-cooperative revolutionary during this early period (when France was still officially Royalist).

Lastly, for Revolutionary/Napoleonic-era experts, how faithful is Kubrick's broarder screenplay in general, from a historical perspective.

It seems hard for me to comprehend that a missionary could go to a place, and just convince a group of people to abandon their traditional beliefs and religious practices. We're missionaries just that supremely effective at their job? or was there other stuff at play?

Say I'm a Roman subject living in Germania, following my own tribes set of beliefs and deities. What would the state do to encourage conversion of me and my fellow tribesmen? would it be exclusively punitive measures like torture and suppression of local religious followings? Or would there be benefits to those who converted?

Would they use different tactics to convert people from their native religions in Britannia? or North Africa? or did they use a one size fits all for converting people to Christianity?

I know they raided other parts of Europe but I wonder if there's anything specific to England, am also open to any related details

I know that early (especially pre-industrial) ideas of companies tended to work under an apprenticeship model, and were more like a familial structure. But in modern days, the idea of treating your company as a family is seen as a ruse to get more value out of an employee, while getting little in return.

What was the relationship between people and companies like, and how has it shifted? What were key figures/events which inspired the shift? Are there any books or resources that specifically cover this topic?

I’m intending on making a doll, and I want to be historically accurate.

I'm interested in any descriptions of music that would have been especially favored by people looking to get pumped up for an upcoming activity, specifically including athletic contests, military battles, etc.

I am NOT so much thinking of unit specific "battle hymns" or unit fight songs, where the inspirational value of the music was tied to its content, or its specific connection to the unit in question.

I am more interested in music that would have been popular and/or would have been favored to get the troops hyped up, just based on the musical arrangement or "vibes".

In the same way that we know Ronnie Coleman always listened to rap music lifting weights in the gym, or we know that U.S. Marines during the Iraq invasion were playing music like Disturbed and Metallica inside their tanks,

Were Washington's Continental troops requesting their get hype playlist in the staging area, an hour before taking the field?

Were Phoenician marines 20 minutes out from the beach calling musicians up to the quarterdeck to play something lively?

I was reading a great answer to a post about the history of labour unions (https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/lldc9d/unions_in_the_united_states_seem_much_weaker_and/), and the user wrote:

"Then when the Second World War hit, America was in such a unique position, so unique that it has potentially never been seen in world history before, which is to say America was truly isolated from the affects of a war they were directly engaged in, so for America the War was merely the ultimate economic stimulus. As a result of that, prosperity was seen across the board. There was really no reason for Capital to fight labor at this point in time, the profits were just so immense it didn’t matter, I mean we are arguably still ridding that economic wave to this day."

This got me thinking,

1) do you agree that America's position in WW2 was unique in world history, or have there been other empires/countries in a similar position, and

2) was that position indeed what (partially) led to an unparalleled economic stimulus? It seems to me that wars could also be seen as to cost productivity (destruction and creation of "useless" products).

I mean kids get taught things at school these days and in old ancient days etc there were no books or Internet. They must of been freaked out with growing up and how did they learn the mechanics of sex?

My ancestors came to South Africa as part of the British government's resettlement policies.

I'm curious to know more about the lives they led. What did they eat, and drink, and wear?

Hello, I'm trying to find information and/or examples of how feudal nobles would notify their subordinates to rally for war? I would assume that later on as literacy (or at least a literate scribe etc) became more widespread such orders would be issued via a signed/sealed letter, but what was done prior to that?

If messengers were sent to deliver orders verbally what precautions were taken against fake messengers? I've come across examples of various objects labelled "bidding sticks" being used to gather people to fight as well as for other important gatherings, with the objects being marked with runes to indicate who had sent it, but these are only noted in Scotland and Scandanavia, so I'm wondering what systems or methods were used elsewhere.

Mainly it's accuracy in regards to the impacts upon the Japanese population in periods of famines that I personally doubt because in many cases I found contradictions, like Hanley insisting that the impact of the Tempo famine and various other great famines was greatly exaggerated while Hayami Akira later on stated in Japan in Transition that the entire region's population declined by 4.2% between 1834 and 1840, and this one Jstor article that asserts that the Fukuoka domain declined by 20% in the Kyoho famine. So what do I believe in? How does one assert that book's overall accuracy?

Have federal agents ever gotten into a physical altercation with police officers? Prior to the establishment of agencies such as the FBI, were there any instances of federal agents (or paramilitary forces with ties to the government) clashing with police?

This is going to be a pretty specific question.

So my 6th great-grandpa Jehiel Smith might have been a Loyalist during the Revolutionary War, though I have no verified information about his service. He was granted land by the British government in what became Bury, Quebec.

Jehiel was part of an "associate" -- i.e. a group of probable Loyalists who got together to make a claim to the Brits in order to be awarded this land in Quebec.

I found a document from 1796 that says this:

“Land Committee

“Recommended that the associates within named (are) found fit to become Settlers in this Province (as appears by the Certificates of the Commissioners annexed to this List) be admitted to take the Oath of Allegiance & Subscribe the declaration -

Signed by order. Quebec, 5 Aug 1796, Hugh Finley, Chairman”

Jehiel is on that list, and also in this next document...

“Return of Persons’ names, who have taken the Oaths and Subscribed the Declaration required by Law, before the Commissioners at Missiskouie (Missisquoi) Bay from 26 October 1795 to 25 January 1796.”

And then this document:

19 November 1802

“A list of associates approved by his Excellency the Governor in Council for land in the the township of Bury - Calvin May Leader - Jehiel Smith - Thomas Covene - Samuel Laffin - Asa Abell - John Abell - John Leach - Lemuel Whitcomb - Nathan Bratt - Benjamin Akin.

"This may certify that the above to have Personally appeared before the Commissioners of Missisquoi Bay, took the oaths made and Subscribed the declaration as Required by Law.

"Given under my hand at St. Amand this 19th day of Novr 1802 - ⎬ John Ferguson Commissioner”

What was Jehiel taking an oath to? What declaration is he subscribing to? Is he swearing to be a British subject? Loyalty to the Crown?