What questions do you have about stuff from History, or am I the only one?

[EverySongbirdSays]

Hi all, HQ here. We're moving this thread over to History Club now where Songbird will be starting a Part 2 thread for more History quizzical shenanigans

The main history thing I've been pondering for the last couple of days since the weather shifted is the history of clothes.

So... how did Early Man manage in the winter, how did they make clothes out of animal skin?

After that, I understand that clothes production as we know it today began with the industrial revolution.

But how did people manage for clothes you know before we had cotton or machinery

How/when did we realise you could knit wool to make a jumper?

I'm sorry if it's a bit of a stupid question

Has anyone got any stupid questions I might know the answer to ?

and my user name does indeed refer to the Steppe. In my case the Steppe of Central Asia, because I was living there when I joined

NotDavid - yes, but this was definitely into the age of thinking about not doing what the OT said!

EBear - ooh! I loved that book.

the milk from a cow isn't available all year round in pre modern farming times.

I may be saying the same thing in different terms (sorry if so), but year-round milk is certainly pre-modern. All you need to do is stagger the times your cows calve, and people certainly knew enough to do that.

The history of exploration is fascinating. Way back when explorers were new to sailing across the Atlantic, the Pope issued the Treaty of Tordesillas, which drew an arbitrary vertical line down the Atlantic Ocean which gave occupation rights to Spain on one side and Portugal on the other. Which is why Spanish is spoken in most of South America except for Brazil where its Portuguese. (Though that’s complicated by subsequent empire building, hence Guyana driving on the left.)

Also the history of Eastern Europe, which is much larger than I had imagined. That’s also complicated by frequent boundary changes and changes of power, especially Poland which sometimes seemed to almost disappear. Apparently, one saying that’s popular with some historians is “Russia without Ukraine is a country; Russia with Ukraine is an empire.” Which seems to be something that goes back centuries, yet might still have something to say in current times.

One possible idea I picked up from reading about non-Western-Civilisation history is that China protected itself against future Mongol invasions (after the Mongols took China and then retreated) by building a great wall; whereas Russia protected itself by taking over nearby countries as a buffer zone.

Marking place. I kept getting distracting while looking for this thread and now I've no time to read it tonight.

Fantastic thread. So much knowledge here!

I know a fair bit about the Plantagenet and especially Richard II if anyone was curious. One interesting fact is that his "refusal"'to do his duty by producing an heir was part of what led to him being deposed (which is a HUGE moment in all of Royal history), but there is evidence he and his wife sought what passed for Medieval fertility treatment. Granted he did then marry a 9-year-old after his wife died.

Can anyone recommend a good book (or any book) about Queen Anne? I find her fascinating. There are some who believe she was a lesbian or bisexual.

That’s also complicated by frequent boundary changes and changes of power, especially Poland which sometimes seemed to almost disappear.

Yes - other than the Scottish and Welsh borders being a bit changeable at times, and Berwick on Tweed swapping sides from time to time, the British borders have been remarkably stable through history, which is mostly because of being an island nation, and I think that does change our concept of history compared with much of Europe, particularly central and eastern Europe, where the borders have been far more fluid through the centuries. I wonder what sort of things are on the history syllabus for countries like Croatia. (I could probably find out if I googled.)

princess not a biography about Anne, as such but I really enjoyed 'Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough' by Ophelia Field which is primarily about Anne's close friend, but does have bits about Anne in.

I don't think Anne was particularly interesting in the way that some of the more well known monarchs were, which is maybe why she one of the lesser 'promoted' ones.

Thanks, TheHiphopopotamus.

Going back to the discussion on the Soviet era, if anyone goes to Berlin check out the DDR Museum, a completely interactive museum of life in East Germany, complete with a replica of a typical East Berlin flat where you can walk around and touch everything, open all the cupboards etc. Fascinating.

Stalin was super hot when he was young, and you can see how his ideology got twisted. Whereas it's difficult to see Hitler as anything other than a 100% mouth-frothing monomaniacal lunatic. You know how "killing Hitler" is a big trope in time travel fiction? Stephen Fry wrote a novel where a time traveller prevented Hitler from being born and the result was the Axis won WWII. Interesting concept.

Stalin was super hot when he was young

This is true. Ned Kelly, too. There must have been some less dodgy people in history who were good-looking in their youth.

I visited Estonia a lot in the 80s. Daily life was very oppressive, shortages, and a strong sense among the young of being both trapped and spied on. One time I happened to have a banana with me, coming on the ferry from Finland. My Estonian friends nearly cried when they saw it - they had not seen a banana in ten years. I used to bring them tampons. Shampoo and conditioner and on one occasion shoes.
These friends are now middle aged and feel very edgy indeed about Putin posturing near the Russian/Estonian border.

littleprincesssara About halfway down my reading pile is Anne Somerset's 'Queen Anne; the Politics of Passion' which DS gave me for Christmas. I doubt if I'll get to it before next Christmas, but it's been well reviewed, and I enjoyed her Unnatural Murder about the murder of Sir Thomas Overbury in the reign of James I.

I actually find the reign of Queen Anne and Anne herself very interesting. Following up on a posters suggestion above, I recommend the 1969 series The First Churchills. It is mainly the story of Sarah Churchill but, of course, contains a lot of Anne's story. It's for the most part historically accurate as well, unlike a lot of today's period dramas.

And I just realized, available on Youtube.

As far as the Hitler vs Stalin "Evil" in popular perception in the U.K. goes, I think much of it stems from "Uncle Joe" having been our ally during WW2. Even with the advent of the Cold War, mutating him into an equal Big Bad would mean changing the narrative of how WE fought & won the war, something that was simply not welcome in a fractured-struggling nation. Information about what was going on was also hard to come by for most people until the fall of the USSR & then Glasnost (which didn't really last, now did it...)

Hitler's also the focus of a HUGE amount of British popular history output. Stalin barely gets a look in. The more we learn about Hitler - or even just the more we hear the same monstrous things repeated - the more firmly his role as the 20th century's villain is cemented in the collective consciousness.

Popular knowledge of Russian History is usually centred around the Revolution of 1917 & I've encountered several people who conflate Lenin & Stalin &/or who don't understand/believe it could switch so fast from "bread and circuses" "reign of terror & gulags". If you're in that sort of muddle you probably won't "get" Stalin casually slaughtered many times more people than Hitler did.

I wonder a little about the impact of the development of the Labour & Socialist movements in the U.K. (including unions) on how Stalin managed to fly under the radar. Fascism absolutely didn't fly here, but Communism was considered to be a genuine threat/possibility.

Sorry, I'm not being at all coherent/cogent - it is Past Bedtime & I am Much More Unwell Than Usual

With the USA being so completely terrified of communism and paranoid about it in the mid 20th century, you'd have thought that they'd have been dying to make sure that the entire world knew about Stalin's oppression within his own country.

But then again, there is a narrative of WW2 having been altrustically fought to free others from oppression and it would surely have raised the question as to why they needed to free western Europe from oppression but not Russia which was being oppressed from within? And apart from the Cuban missile crisis and the Bay of Pigs they really did try to avoid direct confrontation with Russia itself. Which is entirely understandable of course, mutually assured destruction obviously being not on anyone's wishlist...

Born in the forties, no central heating, double glazing, fridge or freezer but a mesh meat safe and a cold shelf . A copper for washing in the kitchen , dolly tub ,washboard and posser . Donkey stoned steps , ashed up fires at night, chamber pot at night time and toilet down the garden

Way back when explorers were new to sailing across the Atlantic, the Pope issued the Treaty of Tordesillas, which drew an arbitrary vertical line down the Atlantic Ocean which gave occupation rights to Spain on one side and Portugal on the other

It is often said that the Portuguese king knew of Brazil much earlier than the official discovery year of 1500.
In the Tordesillas treaty, he reportedly asked the line to be moved west, thereby including what is now the coast of Brazil.
It was an interesting non-aggression pact.

Also, we teach that Magellan was the first to navigate around the globe, but he actually died somewhere in the Indian Ocean, before completing the journey.

Anne Somerset's Queen Anne v good. Bit dry in places but still readable. It's excellent on her marriage too, attempts to understand the dynamics outside of 'he wasn't manly enough' and 'she was fat and ugly' which are the main attitudes I remember encountering when reading about her before!

Talking about Hitler / the Nazis, Sachenhausen (sic?) was pretty excellently horrific. Its aim was to minimise number of guards to number of prisoners. Sachenhausen was taken over by the Russians (East Germany) after the war. IIRC, after being liberated of Nazi prisoners and left empty for a short while it was reopened and used for Russian prisoners. The principles used are still used in modern prison building.

My interpretation on the fascination with Nazi Germany is not just the terrible stuff that went on - which happens everywhere between all peoples - but the sheer intelligence put behind it. Sachenhausen, technological innovations, the use of Jewish prisoners as medical subjects in such an organised fashion. It took genocide from being something brutish and messy to clinical and organised, which is particularly chilling. Intelligent serial killers are the stuff of nightmare, Nazi Germany was the same on a grand scale.

I wonder about these things all the time - but I seriously can't imagine what inspired someone to try strapping knives to their feet to skate across ice.

Completely random q I've always wondered about - why is Elizabeth II not Elizabeth I given that Scotland (and indeed the U.K.) has never had an Elizabeth I?

I can sort of see James II being James II and not VII even though Scotland had had 6 already because he was the second James to rule the whole lot. But it seems a bit unfair with Elizabeth II.

Elizabeth is II because there's already been an Elizabeth. She can't be Elizabeth II of England and I of Scotland because there are not two separate countries any more.

James I/VI becoming king of both England and Scotland was the union of the crowns - he was king of two places and could have a number for each.

Charles I didn't need a number for each because there hadn't been a Charles in Scotland yet, but he would have.

James II was still known as James II of England and VII of Scotland.

After the union of the Parliaments, people were not "King of England and Scotland", they were "King of Great Britain" (or something) and so can only have one number.

(is that right? it feels right)

In that case after the union of parliament, shouldn't the numbers have re-set? Basically, she is not the 2nd Elizabeth to preside over the united parliament. She is the first.

That'd be confusing though. Imagine if we re-set all the Edwards?

Hmm I see. Well I'd settle for resetting James II as James VII. I know he's James II and VII but he's commonly referred to as James II. James I is maybe more well-known as James I and VI.

It just seems very Anglo-centric to follow the English numbering but not the Scottish.

About socialism and the Labour party in Britain - they rose out of trade unions and the Liberal party and weren't that closely connected to socialist movements in other countries. Marx was an influence but not the only one or the biggest. Lenin was very scathing about the British Labour movement but cause he felt it was wishy washy. So, it's not surprising they didn't feel any connection to Stalin the only thing Labour had in common with the USSR was the name socialist but it was interpreted very differently.

Socialism – a much maligned word. Different in every country. Probably the biggest influence on the emerging Trade Union movement came from the Welsh Valleys (they had universal health care early on) and the influence of the Methodist Church and its values.

I wonder who first worked out that having sex produced babies? Someone (Margaret Mead?) came across a tribe who still (20th Century) still hadn't worked that out.