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

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.

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

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?

Was it limited to the smallest person sitting on the fastest horse, so like 40mph? Tobogganing down a steep mountain maybe?

My understanding of Chinese historiography is that there is a very longstanding idea that there is this thing called "China" that has continuously existing for a very long time. And that China is sometimes unified by a state ruled by an emperor from a particular royal family. And we often refer to the state, the royal family the emperor is from, and the period of time that royal family ruled that state as the dynasty. For example, the Han Dynasty refers to a state, ruled by emperors from the Liu family, that lasted from 202 BCE to (at least nominally) 220 CE.

It is also my understanding that Qin Shi Huang was the first emperor of China. I think that is for two reasons. The first being that the term Huangdi, which we translate as emperor, was invented to describe him. And the second being that the empire he ruled was the first state big enough to be considered to unify "China".

So why isn't the Qin dynasty the first dynasty? I know there is the Zhou dynasty. But from my incredibly incomplete understanding of it, it refers to many different states, that all were too small to be considered to unify "China", and none of the rulers of these states called themselves "Huangdi" because that term wouldn't exist until later.

So why do we call the Zhou Dynasty a dynasty. In what sense is it the same kind of thing as the Qin, or Han, or Qing or whatever? I apologize if this question doesn't actually make sense. I just feel like I'm missing something here.

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’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 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?

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.

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.

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?

The premise of the upcoming film By Any Means got me curious about the history behind one part of its story. How realistic would that position have been during the 1950s and 1960s? Were Black FBI agents assigned to investigations involving the KKK or racial violence in Mississippi during this period? If so how did their federal authority work when dealing with segregated local police departments and government officials? I’m especially interested in documented cases where race affected an agent’s ability to do his job. Did local authorities treat Black federal agents differently from their white colleagues or refuse to cooperate with them?

I’m less interested in whether the film itself is historically accurate since it takes dramatic liberties. I’m more curious about the real history behind the situation it depicts and any documented examples of Black FBI agents working in Mississippi or elsewhere in the Deep South during the Civil Rights era.

This was explained by Imran Khan in his autobiography Pakistan, stating it is was not an unreasonable request at all.

Is there any truth to this? If so, why couldn’t they work things out?

Was it that the Taliban’s doubts were beyond what is called reasonable doubt? Was there any dialogue in the first place?

Did Pakistan play any role since the they had worked so hard cultivating the Taliban?

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?

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.

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?

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?

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?

My father is an immigrant from South Korea, he was born in Korea back in 1944. He's never really ever shared anything about his childhood and refused to share when I ask him. Yet, I can imagine that living through the end of the World War II and Korean War must have been terrible. Or, maybe not?

Now that he's getting old, I feel the grief that he might pass soon and I just want to know his world better.

I would also welcome any novels or history books that would give me more of a picture of my dad.