From what I understand, even after Edward's birth, Henry still desired another son, which is quite understandable given that he himself was a second son. So if I were in his place during that time in history, fertility would be my utmost criterion for a wife. Now, obviously Henry wouldn't have a modern understanding of that term, or any other medical knowledge, but judging what people today still believe, one might expect him to either go for youth or for "proven" fertility, as in a widow who had already had children. However, Catherine fits neither - in fact, given that she was 30 and had already been married twice without having any children, I would expect 16th century society to consider her infertile. So I'd like to know if he had any (political?) reasons to go ahead with the marriage outside of potentially having a second male child.

This question comes from listening to the “Rest is History” podcast, and their recent series on the Troubles. One contributor to that particular crisis which the hosts point out is how, repeatedly, British politicans made statements such as “we shouldn’t get involved because we know nothing about Northern Ireland.” To paraphrase Tom Holland and Dominic Sandbrook, so many ministers speak about not understanding Northern Ireland as tho it were a “fact of nature,” and that there was literally nothing they could do to change it. They speak about Northern Ireland as if it was on the other side of the world, rather than on a neighboring island.

Both hosts discuss briefly that it may have stemmed from the Irish home rule debate, and how intractable that was for the British government to resolve. Still, I wonder if someone could go deeper on this. Why did so many prominent British politicians feel utterly incapable of understanding Northern Ireland?

Around the turn of the 20th century, Argentina was an economic giant with one of the highest per-capita GDPs in the world, while Brazil was deeply impoverished and agrarian. By the end of the century, this relationship completely flipped: Brazil became the dominant regional superpower in South America, and Argentina grew economically and geopolitically weaker.
What are the primary historical reasons for this total role reversal?

I remember reading once that he was actually (perhaps to his annoyance?) rather good at the actual work of running his father's business.

I’m Ron James (AKA Folklore), the author of the newly released The History of Cornish Tradition: A Folkloric Journey. This book presents an opportunity to consider how oral narratives and cultural practices change over the centuries – see its introduction here. Four hundred years of primary sources from Britain’s far southwestern peninsula document cultural survival, change, and innovation. In the minds of many, folklore conjures images of hoary traditions that transform slowly if at all. Reality is more dynamic, inviting a blend of historical and folkloristic perspectives. This is the second time I have combined history and folklore to this extent: a previous book, Monumental Lies: Early Nevada Folklore of the Wild West (2023) tackles questions about how folklore emerged and evolved amid the mining frontier. The History of Cornish Tradition is extremely expensive, but fortunately the University of Exeter Press is offering a 30% discount – use AMA30 (good through the end of the year) when checking out. In addition, Monumental Lies is also available with a 30% discount – use UNP2026 (good through 30 September 2026) when checking out.

I came across this quote from General Wesley Clark who shared this behind-the-scenes account the aftermath of 9/11 in an interview in 2007.

According to Clark the countries mentioned were Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran.

I don’t understand because these countries have nothing to do with 9/11 and run on quite different ideologies with nothing or little in common.

Clark stated that an anonymous general working on the Joint Staff at the Pentagon physically showed him the classified memo in November 2001.

The unnamed general told him the memo came directly from the Office of the Secretary of Defense (Donald Rumsfeld) and his Deputy (Paul Wolfowitz)

EDIT: seven Muslim countries

Wondering, because now the monarchs are protected by professional security guards when did the role of the guard regiments transition from a genuine role to mostly just a ceremonious role?

I have a keen interest in the Middle Ages, and this is something that has always stuck in my mind—especially when I’m reading fantasy novels and see characters traveling from point A to point B in less than a week.

Could travel between places really be that fast? Was travel common for commoners, or was it reserved only for those with money?

Thank you very much for your time.

According to this video, Suvorov marched a Russo-Austrian coalition army of some 35-40,000 strong some 90km in 3 days to first intercept Moreau's army, then another 90km in 36 hours to fight MacDonald's army at the Trebbia in an intensive multi-day action of repeated attacks and counter attacks. Then after MacDonald was beaten, he then set his army on an intense pursuit, eliminating MacDonald's Army of Naples as a threat in Northern Italy. All of this done under 35C sweltering heat (according to Wikipedia).

This seems extraordinarily incredible to me. For reference, an ultramarathoner running a 100km race completes it on average in 9-12hrs. This is like asking a whole army of ultramarathoners to finish a 100km course, while carrying 40-50lbs of gear, then fight a multi-day battle of marching across the battlefield, skirmishing, bayonet charges and countercharges - and win the battle. Then after that, you have to secure a town with thousands of prisoners and conduct yet another multi-day pursuit of the retreating enemy. That Suvorov's army was able to fight at all at Trebbia seemed a minor miracle in itself and no real mention were made of attrition due to exhaustion (which one would think would be numerous).

How is this achieved?

Were certain political or civic groups (perhaps with convenient member lists) associated with being tolerant of Tutsis? Was it simply that any Hutu (or Twa) person refusing to participate or assist in the mass murders "moderate" and therefore an enemy in the eyes of the perpetrators?

Thank you.

We all know of English language sea shanties. Did any Portuguese or Spanish sailor's work song or similar survived in written records or singing traditions?

What were the conditions that allowed the English language sea shanties to survive past the windsail era?

I’ve read that abortion became a touchpoint issue in the US after the evangelical movement embraced the anti-abortion stance in the 80s. However, abortion was still illegal in most of the country before Roe v. Wade. Clearly, anti-abortion views must have existed prior to the 80s. The US does has a large Catholic population, but Protestants have always outnumbered them by far. Widespread abortion bans would require widespread Protestant support.

How did 20th century Americans view abortion prior to the rise of the modern anti-abortion movement? What changed with the rise of said movement? Did Roe v. Wade cause a shift beforehand?

I heard someone say that Japanese language did not even have a word for “the western concept of love” until the 19th century. I am struggling to understand what they meant, surely love is a universal human emotion? Is it some difference in the expression or cultural understanding of romance, sexuality, affection, attachment? Was it simply an inaccurate statement? If it is true, what did love look like in Japan before western influence?

Who came up with there being 7 days in a week and what was it like before that?

And was this seen as something desirable, like a chance for a new or better life, or rather the opposite? Was this something let's say a French farmer during the 30 years' war or a Spanish blacksmith in 1540 when the Spanish colonies in America were still fairly new could do?

In every historical game I play Czechia is the Kingdom of Bohemia or a region known as Bohemia. When did people stop referring to it as Bohemia and start calling it Czechia?

I hear things such as fighting Mass migration on the news everyday and throughout almost every political party in the west.

I actually wonder if that has ever worked. If a large sum of people from a different region move to another region, I think it would be almost impossible to move them back to where they came from or send them to another place without committing crimes. Has this actually ever worked?

I am a korean american and I've learned a lot about japans crimes and what the weight behind the rising sun flag is from my dad and from school but I always see it around. I've seen it multiple times as tattoos (usually white people) and in a lot of clothing. Once I was in a korean lunch place and saw it in a poster (not similar looking but it literally was just the rising sun but pink with text). Is the flag now just a common symbol in japanese culture now?

Welcome flair applicants! This is the place to apply for a flair – the colored text you will have seen next to some user's names indicating their specialization. We are always looking for new flaired users, and if you think you have what it takes to join the panel of historians, you're in the right place!

For examples of previous applications, and our current panel of historians, you can find a previous application thread here, and there is a list of active flaired users on our wiki.

Requirements for a flair

A flair in r/AskHistorians indicates extensive, in-depth knowledge about an area of history and a proven track record of providing great answers in the subreddit. In applying for a flair, you are claiming to have:

• Expertise in an area of history, typically from either degree-level academic experience or an equivalent amount of self-study. For more exploration of this, check out this thread.
• The ability to cite sources from specialist literature for any claims you make within your area.
• The ability to provide high quality answers in the subreddit in accordance with our rules.

For a more in-depth look at how applications are analyzed, consult this helpful guide on our wiki explaining what an answer that demonstrates the above looks like.

How to apply

To apply for a flair, simply post in this thread. Your post needs to include:

• Links to 3 to 5 answers which show a sustained involvement in the community, including at least one within the past month.
• These answers should all relate to the topic area in which you are seeking flair. They should demonstrate your claim to knowledge and expertise on that topic, as well as your ability to write about that topic comprehensively and in-depth. Outside credentials or works can provide secondary support, but cannot replace these requirements.
• The text of your flair and which category it belongs in (see the sidebar). Be as specific as possible as we prefer flair to reflect the exact area of your expertise as near as possible, but be aware there is a limit of 64 characters.
• If you are a former, now inactive flair, an application with one recent flair-quality answer, plus additional evidence of renewed community involvement, is required.

One of the moderators will then either confirm your flair or, if the application doesn't adequately show you meet the requirements, explain what's missing. If you get rejected, don't despair! We're happy to give you advice and pointers on how to improve your portfolio for a future application. Plenty of panelists weren't approved the first time.

If there's a backlog this may take a few days but we will try to get around to everyone as quickly as possible.

Updated Procedures

Note that we have made some slight changes to the requirements of the past. Previous applications required all answers to be within the past six months. But we realize that this can sometimes be tough if you write about uncommon topics. We have changed the temporal requirement to be one answer that was written in the past month. The answers as a whole will be evaluated holistically with an eye towards a regular pace of contributions. i.e. 3 answers each spaced 3 months apart would be accepted now, but we would likely ask for more recent contributions if an application was one recent answer and the rest over a year old. Flair reflects not only expertise, but involvement in the AskHistorians community.

"I'm an Expert About Something But Never Have a Chance to Write About It!"

Some topics only come up once in a blue moon, but that doesn't mean you can't still get flair in it! There are a number of avenues to follow, many of which are dealt with in greater detail at the last section of this thread.

Expected Behavior

We invest a large amount of trust in the flaired members of r/AskHistorians, as they represent the subreddit when answering questions, participating in AMAs, and even in their participation across reddit as a whole. As such, we do take into account an applicant's user history reddit-wide when reviewing an application, and will reject applicants whose post history demonstrate bigotry, racism, or sexism. Such behavior is not tolerated in r/AskHistorians, and we do not tolerate it from our panelists in any capacity. We additionally reserve the right to revoke flair based on evidence of such behavior after the application process has been completed. r/AskHistorians is a safe space for everyone, and those attitudes have no place here.

Quality Contributors

If you see an unflaired user consistently giving excellent answers, they can be nominated for a "Quality Contributor" flair. Just message the mods their username and some example comments which you believe meet the above criteria.

FAQ Finder

To apply for FAQ finder, we require demonstration of a consistent history of community involvement and linking to previous responses and the FAQ. We expect to see potential FAQ Finders be discerning in what they link to, ensuring that it is to threads which represent the current standards of the subreddit, and they do so in a polite and courteous manner, both to the 'Asker', and also by including a username ping of the original 'Answerer'.

Revoking Flair

Having a flair brings with it a greater expectation to abide by the subreddit's rules and maintain the high standard of discussion we all like to see here. The mods will revoke the flair of anybody who continually breaks the rules, fails to meet the standard for answers in their area of expertise, or violates the above mentioned expectations. Happily, we almost never have to do this.

Additional Resources

Before applying for flair, we encourage you to check out these resources to help you with the application process:

• Our Rules Roundtable on what a 'Good Answer' looks like
• Our Wiki Guide on what makes a good application
• The Previous Application Threads, to see what makes for successful - and not successful - applications.
• The Sunday Digest, and Monthly Awards which can provide many examples of we are looking for regarding the caliber of flaired users.