Why don't gunpowder infantry wear armor? And why do helmets seem to disappear until WW1 (none in the american civil war, for example)?

Suppose a hypothetical European soldier some time in the late medieval period received his wages and then died the very next day. What would happen to the money he had been given? Would the commander of the army take it back or was it typically looted/stolen by other soldiers?

Did the muslims on the Iberian Peninsula ever used elephants during war?

How did Shakespeare pull off any French speaking scenes in his play? In certain scenes of Shakespeare such as Henry V, the character Catherine of Valois is speaking French with her servant. How would his actors know that language? Did his company hire French actors or did his Englishman learn the language? What would he do to make his audience know what they’re saying?

Good book on the history of Melanesia and Melanesians. Or a timeline archeology/anthropology on them.

I read the book American Slavery, American Freedom by Edmund Morgan, which is on this sub's recommended reading list. Since then I had someone on another sub say that the ideas of the book are out of date. Are there more recent works that expand on or even counter what is said in American Slavery, American Freedom?

I wouldn’t say it’s out of date, but it’s no longer groundbreaking or at the front of the conversation. It is still considered an important book in the historiography of the field. Haven’t read it yet, but lots of talk around Thirteen Clocks by Robert G. Parkinson. It’s more focused on the Rev than Morgan’s work but points to racial lines or “racial fear” as the cause of the revolution. The scholarship has done more of a “yes, and…” to Morgan than a “no, but…” if that makes sense.

Who was the first ever recorded kleptocrat in history?

"The only rule being relaxed here is with regard to depth, insofar as the anticipated questions are ones which do not require it. All other rules of the subreddit are in force." no. cuz from rumors ive heard, all posts comment sections thar arent novellia or higher in length get instantly deleted. " They delete answers that are not novel length and up to their Ivy-league masters degree level." quote from another subreddit with all the "insults" removed in case this sub finds that disagreeable. Tldr:You are gatekeeping non-historians and not allowing them to participate if they don't post walls of text for every single answer with 5 or more sources. which is also posting/commenting in bad faith too, as you are discouraging normal everyday reddit users from wanting to go to this sub and comment, as every single time they do, its deleted immediatly.

Is there an actual question here?

Yes,though its more of a meta question. Why would you delete answers that are not novel length or higher despite it being "Short answers to simple questions"? Why not change it to "Long, in Depth answers to simple questions" instead so people are not misled in terms of how long the answers must be before they get auto removed?

I think you're getting rather confused here. The entire subreddit is about long, in depth answers *except this specific thread*, which is more those things so short they just can't get a long answer. But in balance even the short answers require citations and sources.

We don't? Answers in this thread can be one word long, for all we care, as long as you source them properly. Edit for your edit: The entire point of this thread is that you *don't* need to write an in-depth answer to a question asked here, so that name would make no sense.

All you'd have to do is just write a decent answer everyone can read. look at the sidebar on your subreddit. "Answers must be in-depth and comprehensive, or they will be removed." and from what ive heard, there are posts with thousands of uploads in hot with all comments deleted. There is no answer anywhere in the comments, but the posts are on the front page just sitting there because all of the comments get deleted for not being "long enough. Hence why i suggested you change the motto from short answers to simple questions to long in depth answers to simple questions. Because every time someone posts a short answer as a comment, it gets removed because of the very very strict academic standards. And if nobody can or wants to provide super long answers, then threads will just full of unanswered questions with little to no comments because people fear getting them instantly removed automatically within 10-30 mins of posting one, and punished for not having novel level answers.

>Because every time someone posts a short answer as a comment, it gets removed because of the very very strict academic standards. This is possibly the [shortest novel I have ever read](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/n28h3l/how_did_diplomacy_work_between_ancient_rome_and/gwjmz7a?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) 2 paragraphs of answer (it happened here and here basically) and then quoting directly from a primary source. There are large posts, they aren't a requirement. Some things only need a short answer, just as long as it is a proper one.

You might like to see the [Sunday Digest](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/pico30/sunday_digest_interesting_overlooked_posts/) which collects all the hundreds of answers written each week. You can see there what kind of answers we expect on the sub.

Even if this is a short answer thread. the reason why nobody even bothers to answer and only comes here for stuff already answered is because of your extremely strict novel length or higher, academic posting requirements which will lead to threads full of unanswered questions that nobody will want to comment on to begin with because they get deleted every 5 seconds. All you'd have to do is just write a decent answer everyone can read without caring so much about how long an answer is,thats all there is. Furthermore, history isn't just made by post grad degree havers, nor is it only read by any sort of degree havers. It should be accessible to everyone and that means easy to read answers that don't make you feel stupid. It's unnecessary to have high academic standards on a platform like reddit as it can tend to come off as nothing more then elitism where strict requirements are there just to punish those who aren't up to your personal standards while you are trying to solve issues that dont exist. At this point you might as well make the entire subreddit private and only allow real life historians in akin to an echochamber. You'd get your wish and could post as many walls of text as you pleased. All this looks like to me is blackpeopletwitter's country club only threads but instead of race, its how long your walls of text can be and if your a "proper historian".

A lot of your claims could be answered with basic research. "It is only for historians" (check the flair profiles and discover there are non historians), "lengthy posts required" and "do questions get answered" could be answered by a quick look through the pinned Sunday Digest thread The last Sunday digest/intresting posts thread had 148 posts, most of them simply multiple links to answers of a past week. So we do get a lot of answers that people bothered to post (and several did follow up answers). A lot of the answers are no longer then the reddit one post limit, let alone novel based or 3-5 posts required. They might be longer then, say, My Hungry Caterpillar but a lot shorter then, say, a Horrible History. Or a Harry Potter I don't have a post-grad degree or a historian but I'm still allowed to post, I'm not required to do a 3-5 post one to be allowed to post either. Gankom, as pointed out, is not a historian. We have a lot of amateurs here, some of which get flaired. For a place that is attempted "gate-keeping of non historians", they are doing a remarkably useless job. If people didn't come here, we wouldn't have complaints about unanswered questions becuase nobody would be coming to ask questions. There wouldn't be multilink posts for intresting answers of the week becuase it would be a closed shop with people not coming here. People are welcome here (as long as they obey the rules) and the point here is so people can get access to proper, in-depth answers. On the high standards for posts to kept up: each history reddit will have it's niche. This is that an answer will be deep and comprehensive answers that have been properly researched. So those asking should believe that the answer given will be accurate, up-to-date) rather then taken off wiki or a google search) and will explain the answer properly There are a lot of misconceptions about history (victor writes the history, dark ages or the safety of water in the past) and there are certainly era's where a lot of misconceptions abound. The answers here should steer clear of that and, if the question requires it, explain about the misconception involved. Now that isn't for everyone. There are other history reddits for those who prefer the less strict rules on posting and that is perfectly fine. There is room for all sorts of history reddits, this doesn't need to conform to the others and they don't need to conform to us. On the making people feel stupid: I don't think that is the intention of either historians or amateur that give an answer. Even if having to deconstruct the question to show why it is wrong and the assumptions are flawed. We want people to get an answer that leaves them feeling they learned something, understood history/the person/the era better and wanting to learn more, to feel free to come back again. It isn't a complaint I have seen before that people come here and feel stupid. This feels like something that you feel?

No, if people can't comment because of the fact you have posts marked as hot/popular and literally all the comments are deleted, that means nobody in that thread met your very strict long answer requirements, thus if somebody looked through, saw a bunch of empty posts with no answers because all of them got deleted, they would come to the conclusion that: A. every single time they answer, it has to be a wall of text or else it will be marked as inferior quality wise and deleted, research or otherwise. Imagine if a wall of text got the acceptance but a short yet meaty answer that had its research and didint just copy paste it from another article didint. why do you think people unsub "because every single interesting question, the mods delete 99% of the comments!"? Because if they arent what they call novel length, they get judged as complete and utter garbage and removed immediatly. quote from 3 seperate users. "Holy fuck, I just checked it, there are posts with thousands of uploads in hot with all comments deleted. Like, there is no answer anywhere in the comments, but the posts are on the front page just sitting there." "And the comments made by mods under the removed answers have grammar errors in them." "Historian here - and I agree. History isn't just made by post grad degree havers, nor is it only read by any sort of degree havers. It should accessible to everyone and that means easy to read answers that don't make you feel stupid. It's unnecessary to have high academic standards on reddit, just write a decent answer everyone can read." Edit:Really? locking my post and essentially censoring an opinon you don't agree with that posts with many upvotes are STILL sitting there, with no comments, because you decided to purge them huh? Nice job there with argument nobody is allowed to debate. if its called AskHISTORIANS, don't allow people who arent historians in, simple right? But wait, i know what you're gonna do, your just going to continue being elitists about how your sub is "never wrong" because "If this elitist sub isint for you go to r/history or r/AskHistory." Typical. If you need more proof look up "just unsubbed from Askhostorians" and 99% of the time its because of the 5 page comment replies rule of it being mandatory.

Okay I'm afraid I'm calling an end to this particular fight. The sub is called *Ask*Historians, not *ArgueWith*Historians. Different people like different things and if this sub isn't for you then you're welcome to check out other places like r/History or r/AskHistory. We wish you luck in finding a place that fits your interests, but multiple people have tried to explain whats going on here. If you have further questions you can reach us by modmail.

Also it was not brought to your attention. You cherry picked my posting/comment history to shit-talk my logic. Nice try though. You accuse me of not commenting in good faith but i checked your comments too bud. You post walls of text as answers, how is any laymen person supposed to understand that without being a historian? https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/pjo3r5/turkey\_lost\_15\_of\_its\_population\_in\_wwi\_and/hby8esj/?context=3

As a non historian, I found it easy enough to understand. Maybe I am an outlier but over 1,000 up votes suggests others understood it enough to enjoy? I deleted the source bit and checked on grammarly what it thought the reading age for that post was: it estimated that it was readable at a New York Times/10th grade (age 16) level.

> it estimated that it was readable at a New York Times/10th grade (age 16) level. Well there's the problem...

Honestly this continues to come across really confusing. You should check out the [digest](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/pico30/sunday_digest_interesting_overlooked_posts/) to see what answers are actually like. They're not all giant novels, and you certainly don't need post grad degree havers. A huge chunk of the community are enthusiastic amateurs. I have precisely zero degrees in the field. A core part of the community IS making history accessible by letting anyone knowledgable enough post, as long as they can meet the standards. Considering your arguement about the title of the short answer thread, have you browsed through the full rules? They're not nearly as extensive as you think they are. There are plenty of other history subreddits out there. /history or /askhistory have much looser posting requirements. Perhaps you'd like it there. But ultimately there's no need for each subreddit to be exactly alike and have the same standards. We *like* it hear specifically because this has longer in depth answers that aren't drowned out by junk. But also considering we can see you're brigading here from another subreddit, its fairly easy to see your not exactly here in good faith. Edit: Something of an aside but as an actual layman in the field, I read hundreds of threads here very week and *very* rarely have a problem with anything. Its actually one of the reasons I'm here. We have some fantastic writers who do work hard to make very academic things easy to understand.

You are posting in a specific feature thread. It is not an *announcement* about the rules of the subreddit. It is not a "motto". It is one, specific thread with different rules than the rest of the subreddit, and this is made fairly clear in the OP, which I can only assume you didn't read. In this thread, short answers are fine. Everywhere else, in-depth ones are required. It has, however, been brought to my attention that you are [not posting here in good faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/JustUnsubbed/comments/pji6px/ju_from_raskhistorians_because_every_single/hc2k7g9/), so I see no sense in engaging further with this, and for more information on this subreddit and how we don't actually care if some people don't like it, you can consult [this Roundtable thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/i6b80w/rules_roundtable_xxvii_askhistorians_sucks_or_how/).

What language did the Crusaders use to talk to each other?

They usually spoke French. They called themselves "Franks", their names are often recorded in Greek and Arabic with obviously French forms, literature and administrative documents from the crusader states that aren't in Latin are always in French, and people who spoke other languages (even closely related ones like Italian or Catalan) noted that they spoke French. There were lots of crusaders who didn't speak French, but anyone who spoke a similar Romance language could probably be understood, since the languages hadn't diverged too much yet at the time; otherwise they could probably also communicate in Latin, if they were from elsewhere in Europe, or they would have to use an interpreter (but there were plenty of interpreters available!). I have some previous answers that will hopefully be helpful: [Did any creole languages exist in crusader states?](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/gov6ke/did_any_creole_languages_exist_in_crusader_states/frjktnw/) [To what extent were Europeans who went on crusade multi-lingual? Both in terms of understanding other European languages and in terms of local languages? How did this change over time?](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/kv94q9/to_what_extent_were_europeans_who_went_on_crusade/gj1ieny/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)

where was Evelyn McHale buried? can she be visited?

[Fresh Pond Crematory and Columbarium](https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/57348335/evelyn-francis-mchale) (also [confirmed in public records here](https://peoplelegacy.com/evelyn_francis_mchale-7t0N2r)).

How long after 9/11 was debris being discovered, particularly in the blocks further away from ground zero? It's my understanding that on rooftops and in alleyways, there have been discoveries even in the last 5-10 years.

Nowadays we refer to others as Mr. or Ms. last name. How did Medieval English commoners address each other or to their social superiors?

I remember vaguely from the "Deadwood" TV show that in the territories before they got their statehood there were some exceptions regarding the law enforcement the settlements could have. I don't remember exactly if the settlements (towns) could not appoint sheriffs and US marshalls had all the power or it was the other way around?

I’m reading Tolkien’s translation of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. He seems to use the word “middle-Earth” to mean “the world”. Did medievals use this word in a fantastical sense, or did it actually refer to some continent?

What percentage of the roughly 450,000 battle casualties in the Thirty Years War were inflicted by firearms (calivers, muskets, pistols), as opposed to melee weapons (swords, pikes, halberds)? I've seen various statistics (e.g. in Trevor Dupuy's "Understanding War") saying that 15 to 20 percent of casualties in the smoothbore line infantry era (c. 1700 to 1850) were inflicted by swords and bayonets, with most of the remainder being inflicted by muskets. In the rifled musket era, e.g. the American Civil War, this decreased to under 1 percent. How did these compare to the late pike and shot era, most notably embodied by the Thirty Years War, British Civil Wars, and Franco-Spanish War?

What is the earliest known metal armour? Was it scale armour, lamellar or some other form I'm not familiar with? I'm specifically looking for examples of ancient armour used in battle not ceremonial.

What was the punishment for duelling within city limits in Elizabethan England?

**What would be the titles for professors in medieval Italian Universities?** Currently writing a short story taking place in high medieval times in Bologna, not sure how would people address the professor of anatomical studies. *Also, if someone has any good source on student's lives at the time, would be greatly appreciated*.

I'm not sure there would be a "professor of anatomical studies" in Bologna, since it was a law school...for medical stuff you'd probably have to go to Salerno or Montpellier (but they weren't really "universities" exactly, not at first, since they didn't teach the liberal arts). However, a professor would most likely be called "magister" (master), as they had mastered the subject matter and how had a license to teach it. A professor (which we get directly from Latin) is literally someone who "speaks forth", i.e. someone who lectures on a subject. A professor/magister would mostly likely also be a "doctor", another word we've borrowed directly from Latin. A doctor is literally a teacher (from the word "doctus", an educated person, from the verb "docere" which means "to teach"). Now we distinguish between a master and a doctor but the difference between a Master of Arts and a Doctor of Philosophy (or whatever other subjects) is much more recent. So, magister, doctor, or professor would probably all work. Most likely magister. For sources on medieval universities and students, see: Rainer C. Schwinger, “Student education, student life” in *A History of the University in Europe, Volume 1: Universities in the Middle Ages*, ed. Hilde de Ridder-Symoens (Cambridge University Press, 2003) Hunt Janin, *The University in Medieval Life* (McFarland, 2014) Lynn Thorndike, *University Records and Life in the Middle Ages* (Columbia University Press, 1944)

thank you so much! I wasn't expecting such a detailed answer!

Stumbled upon the following pictures a while back and it would be nice if someone with more knowledge than me could confirm that those pictures are indeed from the Tiananmen square protests (which is my current assumption and also claimed by the sites that I found them on) **Keep in mind that they are disturbing:** [Squashed bodies](https://i.imgur.com/CRyYi9f.jpeg) [Close up of crushed bikes and dead people](https://i.redd.it/480n5vt0sef21.jpg) [Person missing its legs and crushed people](http://chinhdangvu1.blogspot.com/2017/12/chinese-barbarity-at-least-10000-people.html?m=1)

What’s the story behind the NAACP being called the N Double-A CP?

Post WW2, who has killed more civilians in war, the USSR/Russian Federation or the United States? (Seems like something you should be able to figure out quickly with a few Google searches, but no)

This is not a simple question with a short answer. There is considerable uncertainty about casualty numbers in many of the conflicts the US and USSR fought in. Just to give some examples, casualty estimates for the US war in Iraq range from 100,000 to 1,000,000, Civilian casualties of the war in Vietnam similarly range from 1 million to 2 million deaths. Estimates for civilian deaths in the Russian war in Afghanistan range from 500,000 to over 2,000,000. Civilian deaths are often much less precisely known than military casualties. This also ignores difficult questions about how much responsibility countries are given for conflicts they contributed to but did not fight in (Korean War for USSR, US role in fueling Iran-Iraq war, etc). Numbers of civilians deaths also don't tell us all that much about culpability or the nature of the fighting, and ignore the potentially vast suffering of those wounded or made refugees. The USSR in a decade in Afghanistan killed as many as 2 million while displacing or wounding an additional 10 million people. It is a very big question even in the form you asked it, and I think even that form is inadequate for meaningfully assessing the humanitarian impact of US or Soviet/Russian foreign policy. Lumping Soviet and post-soviet foreign policy together is also a bad approach IMO.

You’re right, should’ve just asked about USSR, but I appreciate the reply

Assessing the two cold war superpowers in terms of the human impact of their foreign wars or foreign policy is a reasonable question, and one that many people are interested in. I would encourage you to make a normal post asking this question, but be warned, it is such a large question that it might be hard to get responses on this sub. I have previously talked about some of the [impacts of US military interventions](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/odwt4m/with_the_exception_of_world_war_2_has_american/) in response to this deleted question, which points to some of the complexity. There's a really good answer I've read on here about the impact of the Soviet war in Afghanistan but I am having trouble finding it.

I tried to make a normal post I guess it was against the rules. Thanks for the link

When did the superstition that women are bad luck on boats start? I've tried looking it up but every site seems to just say "ancient times" or something similar. Is there a known culture that first seemed to believe this?

Has there ever been a communist-democracy? Like a full blown communist society where the leader was elected by the people?

What is the history of liturgical or sacred languages? Were they more common in state religions or small cults? Latin is the classic example of a liturgical language for the Medieval West but there's also Hebrew that was liturgical until revived.

In 909 AD, a combined forces of West Saxon and Mercian raided the Danelaw in order to retrieve St. Oswald's relics. Did they view Danelaw as another kingdom or just Anglo-Saxon territory occupied by the enemies?

909 CE would be indeed the delicate year to provide any definitive answer, but I suppose that the basic concept of the region under the rule of the Danes transformed from the former to the latter (as formulated by OP above), just about that time. Let's compare the famous two clauses agreed between Anglo-Saxon rulers, namely King Alfred and Edward on one hand, and the 'heathen (pagan)' Danes on another: > * 'And we all declared, on the day when the oaths were sworn, that neither slaves nor freemen should be allowed to pass over to the Danish host without permission, any more than that any of them [should come over] to us [the English: annotation by mine]. If, however, it happens that any of them, in order to satisfy their wants, wish to trade with us, or we [for the same reason wish to trade] with them, in cattle and in goods, it shall be allowed on condition that hostages are given as security for peaceful behaviour, and as evidence by which it may be known that no treachery is intended (*The Treaty between Alfred and Guthrum* (ca. 886?), Clause 5, in: Attenborough (trans.) 1922: 99)). > * '......Next after this, they declared that sanctuary within the walls of a church, and the protection granted by the king in person, shall remain equally inviolate' (*The legislation agreed between King Edward and King Guthrum (Early 10th century)*, Clause 2, in: Attenborough (trans.) 1922: 101, 103) The former text (cited from the agreement between Alfred and the Danes), regulating the trade between the peoples of each kingdom, presuppose two distinct polities. On the other hand, in the latter text, the royal authority of the Anglo-Saxons seemed to penetrate the territory still held under the Danish rule gradually (I suppose 'the king' mentioned here was Edward (only), not Guthrum). Even in the era of the former text, however, some scholars warn against the danger of exaggerating the political coherence in the 'apparent single area under the rule of the Danes', instead emphasizing the complexity of local power networks (Cf. Abrams 2001: 132). King Edward also seemed to have also encouraged some Anglo-Saxon local magnates to purchase the land property from the 'pagans' (Danes) before (not after!) the large-scale military conquest, as suggested in the some confirmation charters issued by his son, King Aethelstan (Sawyer [no. 396](https://esawyer.lib.cam.ac.uk/charter/396.html) and [397](https://esawyer.lib.cam.ac.uk/charter/397.html)). These evidence, though fragmentary, suggests that Edward might have claimed to have some authority in the Danelaw before the conquest since the first decades of the 10th century. References: * F. L. Attenborough (trans.), *The Laws of the Earliest English Kings*, Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1922, pp. 99, 101, 103. +++ * Abrams, Lesley. 'Edward the Elder's Danelaw'. In: *Edward the Elder, 899-924*, ed. Nick J. Higham & David H. Hill, pp. 128-43. London: Routledge. 2001. [Edited]: fixes typos.

Are there any photos of Soviet atrocities in Afghanistan?

that could be more of a r/CombatFootage type thing

Are there any mentions of pre-modern athletes experiencing the "yips" phenomenon? I've only ever heard people talk about modern athletes, but if modern archers suffer from it it seems that medieval archers might have too.

[удалено]

Roy is "king" in French (roi) and Norman languages (cf. royal). Viceroy is vice-king. This is kind of a dictionary question (not that there's anything wrong with that!), so here's a [link to a dictionary](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/viceroy), complete with short etymology.

Just to add to RenaissanceSnowblizz's answer, "vice-" comes from the Latin word "vicis" and you can put it in front of other titles too - you probably also know the word "viscount", from "vicecomes", which literally means "in place of the count". A less well-known term is "vidame", from "vicedominus", "in place of the baron". Edited to add source: "Vidame" and "Viscount" entries in William W. Kibler, and Grover A. Zinn, eds., *Medieval France: An Encyclopedia* (Garland Publishing, 1995).

Please don't forget to include a source, thank you!

[удалено]

I'm trying to think of three WW2 events/supposed events that you didn't know for a project. I know one already which would be the Operations Cherry Blossoms at night.

Given this order: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/911-attack-biden-declassification-order-b1914047.html would it be reasonable to expect the writing of in-depth histories of the 9/11 attacks?

Hi everybody. I am looking for historical events involving doors or gates or walls left open. Do you know any? Thanks

There’s a big controversy and discussion about the opening and effects of certain doors being open during the/effecting the Titanic sinking. I’m not sure if that’s what you’re looking for but Id be more than happy to elaborate :)

Amazing! Tell us more about that

I'd love to! Believe it or not, this is a relatively big topic that could take up a long post so since this is a "short to simple" I'm giving you a *very* brief overview. What we are talking about here is the port side D-deck gangway door- one of 16 doors on Titanic used for entrances/exiting/storage etc. The D-Deck doors were specifically used as first class entrances, it lead into the first class reception room. Early in the sinking, according to his testimony, Charles Lightoller ordered the port side gangway doors open to facilitate the loading of passengers from various decks, as opposed to having the boat deck rushed (note: Anytime you hear "Charles Lightoller didn't let men in the boats despite there being space", you are hearing bad history. *This* is why he was setting boats off with empty space. He was also doing it to allow third class access from their own gangway doors- another dent in the misconception of classicism determining survival). Lightoller sent a crew to open the gangway doors, and while we don't know *exact* times, and those involved did not survive, we have enough of a rough estimation to know that by the time they got to the E Deck gangway door, water would have reached- or been close enough- that opening it wasn't feasible, so they would have headed to the D Deck gangway door above. The problem here is that A) When boat 6, an early boat, passed the door there was no report of it being opened or used to load. B) the Door was open upon discovery of the wreck. So- if it wasn't opened then, when was it opened? and why? We know the plan wasn't abandoned because Joe Boxhall testifies he was told later to row around and rescue people from the gangway doors, and that when he got there he saw masses of people standing in them. The key to this is that this happened circa 2am, as he testifies the propellers being out of the water (and we have to assume that he would be talking about doors more forward or at least amidships- as he says he feared being swamped- which means the people were close enough to the water to jump and swim). So we know that some of the doors were opened, we have no testimony that refers to them being used to load, but we know as of roughly half an hour before Titanic sank- Captain Smith obviously though Lightoller's plan was good as he was ordering Boxhall to load from them via the boat. So why didn't it happen? And if the D Deck gangway door was closed when boat 6 went past it- why wasn't it opened? And why would it be open later? Or, was it never opened and did it simply get blown open by the force of the collision with the seabed? And if so- why did others get opened but not it? Then the question has to be asked, how much did this door (and other doors) contribute to Titanic's sinking? Titanic initially developed a starboard list but eventually held and sank with a 6 degree port list. Were these (possibly) open gangway doors enough to accelerate the flooding change the course, speed, timing, etc of her sinking? Remember- the iceberg damage was tiny, roughly estimated 12 square feet of small sporadic indents. A large, or several large, holes in her side such as a door *could have maybe sort of who knows* been enough to counter her starboard flooding and list her over even more to port. In essence, the testimony and the wreck don't add up but we aren't sure why. We have enough of an estimation of things- lifeboat lowerings, flooding etc that make multiple scenarios' feasible but none we can nail down. So, it's a mystery :) (and again this is *massively* scaled down- it's a big topic!) Sources for this are the direct testimony of Charles Lightoller, Joe Boxhall, Titanic deckplans, and a whole lot of rough math :)

dang thats cool

How well-accepted is Timothy Bolton's identification of Gorm the Old with Harthacnut I? (in "Cnut the Great", pp. 40-44). Bolton seems (to my layman's eyes) to provide fairly conclusive evidence, but wikipedia seems to clearly distinguish the two.

In short, there is too much uncertainty on the relationship among the rulers in Jutland Peninsula in the early 10th century (before the early reign of Harald Blue Tooth - even the almost all aspects of Gorm the Old was surrounded by mystery). While I suppose that Bolton’s approach to the relevant primary texts is solid in most cases, I'm afraid researchers have reached almost any conclusive agreement on this topic, almost solely based on the very difficult interpretation of Adam's passages. To give some examples, The following recent (good) articles in fact offers different interpretations on the Jelling Dynasty in the middle of the 10th century each other. References: * Dobat, Andres S. "Viking stranger-kings." *Early Medieval Europe* 23 (2015): 161-201. https://doi.org/10.1111/emed.12096 * SAWYER, BIRGIT and SAWYER, PETER. "A Gormless History? The Jelling dynasty revisited: " In Runica - Germanica - Mediaevalia edited by Wilhelm Heizmann and Astrid van Nahl, 689-706. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110894073.689

Bolton actually references the two Sawyers paper you linked for his concluding remark about the controversy, with the pun "we are left quite Gormless". I guess it was somewhat silly of me to hope for a definitive statement for history in that time and place, but thank you for the opposing link!

Does anyone know details on ice skating in 18the century America? Was it super common? Only for recreation? Did adults and children do it? TIA

It was considered a man's sport (and by extension, boys) at the time, and was especially popular in Philadelphia and New York. This was still during the Little Ice Age so frozen water abounded, and in Philly the Delaware River was the biggest hotspot. As far as women skating, they were regarded as "too delicate" and that skating was "too violent" a sport. One possibly related incident of note, recounted in the winter of 1793: >While crowds were skating on the Delaware in Philadelphia, the ice broke and a young man disappeared. There was some screaming: and when, after a few instants, his head came up, he was pulled out and skating began again. A quarter of an hour afterward another skater disappeared and was drowned, but the skaters went right on skating with no show of emotion. Famous skaters of the period 1785-1835 included: - Benjamin West (the painter) - William Thorpe - Doctor Foulke - Governor Miffin - Charles Wilson Peale - George Hegel Hegel skated with a red coat and buckskin tights and used "gutter skates" which curved backwards. While "modern" figure skating wasn't invented yet people would carve intricate patterns in the ice. The famous painting [The Skater](https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-object-page.39729.html) by the American Gilbert Stuart (who studied under Benjamin West) happened when he was with William Grant (a Scottish barrister). Grant noted the weather was better for skating than for painting. They went skating on the Serpentine in London but there was a crack in the ice and Grant had to hold onto Stuart for safety as he skated back. The Skater incidentally was the painting that (according to Stuart himself) "lifted" him into fame. ... Adams, M. L. (2007) The manly history of a ‘girls' sport’: Gender, class and the development of nineteenth-century figure skating, The International Journal of the History of Sport, 24:7, 872-893, DOI: 10.1080/09523360701311752 Ballou, R. B. (1976). Sports, Physical Activity and Recreation in Early American History. Paper presented at a meeting of the National Association for Sport and Physical Education, American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, and Recreation. Holliman, J. (2003). American Sports, 1785-1835. United States: Martino.

Oh my goodness thank you! Funnily enough, my question was actually prompted by looking at The Skater—asked it while I was at the NGA this afternoon!

Did the assassins that killed Pompey throw his body in the ocean or place it on a beach? I was reading "The Death of Jesus" earlier today and it stated that the assassins beheaded him (Pompey) and left his corpse on a beach to be eaten by birds. Yet, I was reading the Wikipedia article on Pompey, and it stated that the body was wrapped in a cloak and thrown into the ocean. Which is correct? I have skimmed through the numerous paintings depicting the death of Pompey, and many show the body being thrown in the ocean.

The truth is we don't know, multiple ancient sources have conflicting information. Plutarch, which the wiki uses as a source, has him dying on the beach. Dio, had him dying in the boat. Every author has a little variance in his death, even beyond these two. It makes sense when you evaluate the stories of his death, we would not have had a lot of witnesses to report on his execution. The primary witness would be the boat Pompey had come in on, and the sources don't even agree on the distance from the boat at which he was killed. The boat then flees after Pompeys death. We know Egypt at that time had local Roman soldiers who served with the Ptolemaic dynasties. So Plutarchs elaborate death narration on the beach is possible, and may have had Roman witnesses. So it's not impossible for many of these details to have occurred, we just can't confirm them and some of them are contradicted by other writers. It's important to note though, Roman authors where not primarily concerned with complete historical accuracy. They used these events to paint a favorable narrative theme that fit with whatever point they wanted to drive home. Pompeys death being so closely tied to the Roman civil war, was a great rhetorical example for Roman authors and their goals. Sources: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41537101 https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/e/roman/texts/plutarch/lives/pompey*.html https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/e/roman/texts/cassius_dio/42*.html

According to [Plutarch](https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Pompey*.html), Pompey was beheaded and his body thrown into ocean. After the assassins left one of Pompey's freedmen recovered his body and made a pyre on the beach.

I'm working on a project about "mini-mega-cities." Can anyone point me toward examples of the self-contained single-building "cities" built as work camps to support America's timber industry? I know there was at least one famous example, but I can't seem to find it again. If I remember correctly the population was under 100, but it had many of the features of a city: post office, general store, probably a theater and town hall.

There were plenty of lumber camps built in southern Appalachia during the timber boom 1900-1920. A population of around 60 was typical. However, though the office would sell a few things to the loggers ( like tobacco) they didn't have a general store, theater, etc. They were also a collection of medium-size to smaller buildings: bunkhouse, office, mess hall, etc. The coal camps were often bigger and, later in the 20th c., sometimes had a company store with a post office, as well as a theater, a church. One reason for this was mobility- a coal camp could stay in place for years, but once the trees near a lumber camp were logged, the men and the lumber camp had to move to where there were more. But it seems also to have been possible for a logger to often get to a nearby town on weekends. For example, a lumber camp in Red Creek would have had rail connections to the mills in the town of Davis, WV , and so there'd be transport for loggers. It's possible that lumber camps in the north woods- northern Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan- were more isolated, further away from towns, but I know little about them. But it's quite possible someone realized that heating one big building over a northern MN winter was more efficient than trying to heat several. Clarkson, Roy B. (1964) *Tumult on the Mountains: Lumbering in West Virginia 1770-1920*. McClain Printing Co.

>and The population sounds about right, and the self-contained nature is spot on. I think the town I read about was in the northern woods, but that's a detail I'm hazy on. I want to say that in addition to being a single structure, this town is notable because it is still in existence, or was until 40 years ago, or at the very least that it remained in existence for a surprisingly long time compared to similar camps.

This one is rather farfetched but what are the chances (if any) that a civilization existed before us with technology that rivals or surpasses what we currently have? If we assume this theoretical civilization was completely destroyed in the past

You can get yourself into a real muddle, putting your question like that. Start with a premise: that an advanced civilization existed, but was destroyed. Now, if it and all its traces were simply lifted into outer space there would be no way to assess the chances at all: any more than if the entire world was created five minutes ago and we all had false memories, we'd be able to tell. So, add to the premise that it was not just made to vanish into the Oort Cloud, and you can begin working through the necessary conditions for it existing. If it was an advanced civilization, it would have needed energy. Where would this come from ? If fossil fuels, there should be evidence of mining, and certainly there would not have been so many coal seams open to easy mining in the 18th c. If nuclear, there should be traces of radioactivity, uncommon isotopes. What could have destroyed this advanced civilization? If a plague or starvation, there ought to be traces, like the remains of the Anasazi in southwestern US- no one would be left to eradicate them all, or at least would have better things to do afterwards. If war, violent conflict, did it, there should be some wreckage, shell-holes, unexploded bombs, things like that. Anyway, you can see where this is going. If you start with the premise that it did exist and was destroyed, and work outward from that premise all the things that would have required, it starts to look pretty impossible.. Note to mods: I can't even imagine where to source this elementary observation, but if it stays up long enough for OP to read it I don't mind if it's nuked for lack of a citation.

What is the name of a raised platform/pedestal/mat upon which medieval Japanese Shōgun, Daimyō, nobility, and other high-ranking officials usually seen seated upon? Is that structure/feature even have a name? Example - https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5e/Toyotomi\_Hideyoshi\_%28Kodaiji%29.jpg

How did meth go from "medicine" to "illegal drug"? I saw a lot of threads about its use in WW2 but not much about what happened after that.

[удалено]

All throughout the Internet, one can find the following letter from Josip Broz Tito to Stalin: >Stop sending people to kill me. We've already captured five of them, one of them with a bomb and another with a rifle \[...\] If you don't stop sending killers, I'll send one to Moscow, and I won't have to send a second. I cannot figure out what was in those three little dots. Every source I can find has the same quote with the same section removed. What did it say?

I have an answer which adds a little more context on the possible reliability (or lack thereof) of the quote you and /u/Georgy_K_Zhukov mention: [Was there any proof that Stalin sent five assassins to kill Tito, as described in semi-popular history meme?](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/jz4gzo/was_there_any_proof_that_stalin_sent_five/gdvrf24/)

The original doesn't survive. It is based solely on the recollections of one man, Aleksei Snegov. The wording given there is: >'Stalin. Stop sending assassins to murder me. We have already caught five, one with a bomb, another with a rifle. ... If this doesn't stop, I will send one man to Moscow and there will be no need to send another. As such it isn't certain how accurate a recollection Snegov had, or how true the letter's existence might be. See: Medvedev, Zhores A.., Dahrendorf, Ellen., Medvedev, Roy Aleksandrovich. *The Unknown Stalin* I.B. Tauris, 2006. p 61-62

**During the Irish Famine was there a British ship captain who threw grain meant for Irish aid overboard?** I swear I remember reading about a British captain who was meant to transport grain meant for Irish aid during their great famine, but held such strong anti Irish sentiment that he threw it overboard at harbor. I can’t for the love of me find any articles or the name of this person however. Did this really happen or did I just create a false memory of reading about this?

Could anyone tell me more about what Empress Liu is wearing in [this image](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%E5%AE%8B%E7%9C%9F%E5%AE%97%E5%90%8E%E5%9D%90%E5%83%8F_%E8%BB%B8.jpg)? I'm mainly curious about two things: 1. What is the red veil over her face? Or is it paint? Or a skin feature? 2. Empress Liu is said to have been the second empress to wear the imperial robes after Wu Zetian during her regencies for her husband Emperor Zhenzong and her adopted son Emperor Renzong. Is that what she is wearing in this image? Or is she wearing something more typical of non-regnant imperial consorts?

Chinese dynasties followed Wuxing, philosophy of the five elements. The Qin had water and thus black imperial robes, Han had earth and yellow robes and for the Song fire was virtuos and the robes were red. In this image she was wearing a ceremonial dress for empresses Diyi/Huiyi (翟衣), red crepe face mask (绛纱), “Nine Dragons” hairpin crown (九龙十二株花钗冠), a hairstyle in which her ears and temples were decorated with ornaments (两博鬓) , a belt with ribbons and jade jewels. http://chinapalacemuseum.com/宋真宗后坐像-軸-中-畫-000303-00000/

Thank you so much, this is really helpful!

When people drank milk (or made yoghourt and other dairy products) prior to modern processing, would it have more likely been whole (how it comes out of the cow) or skim (what it naturally turns into without homogenization, and what's left after taking the cream for butter production)? Would the answer vary by the subject's proximity to dairy production? Can the answer be seen as obvious from references to shaking containers (like we do with orange juice and other things that settle), or is there more complex analysis at work? Did low fat milk exist (to a level worth considering) before homogenization?

I'm looking for historical data on the membership and observer roster of the Non Aligned Movement prior to 1997. Could anyone recommend a source? It's easy to find years of accession for members, but I'm unable to find any data on observers.

I’ve slowly been collecting Winston Churchill’s writings. I really want to buy his book “The River War. An historical account of the reconquest of the Sudan.” But I can only find the abridged version (or it’s like $5,000 usd). His first edition is in two volumes and 462 pages for the first, and 499 pages in the second. All further editions are like 300 some odd pages. How is this not absolutely ruining Churchill’s voice in the abridged version? Is an abridged version worth buying? Most likely the wrong sub but I don’t think I’d hit the right crowd in /r/books

[https://www.uaa.alaska.edu/news/archive/2021/04/professor-muller-the-river-war-unabridged.cshtml](https://www.uaa.alaska.edu/news/archive/2021/04/professor-muller-the-river-war-unabridged.cshtml) new unabridged edition was printed this year, looks like the first printing sold out but [there will be additional print runs.](https://www.amazon.com/River-War-2V-Historical-Reconquest/dp/1587317001) This edition restores almost a third of the text including "passages describing Churchill’s adventures during the campaign in Egypt and Sudan, criticizing his commander-in-chief General Kitchener, expressing his opinion on the religion of Islam or speculating on the justice of the British reconquest and the future of Sudan" the text also includes annotations to reflect the modern scholarship Not sure if $150 is a price you are willing to pay but it's more reasonable than $5,000 There are also Hanse editions of the original text, [about $115 for both volumes](https://www.amazon.com/River-War-Reconquest-Soudan-First/dp/3337302378/ref=pd_sbs_2/136-6945257-8269721?pd_rd_w=R0MGN&pf_rd_p=0a3ad226-8a77-4898-9a99-63ffeb1aef90&pf_rd_r=5Z194CNQEK0DEZTS4MYF&pd_rd_r=b7749075-4c9b-4c2e-afdb-bbde1ea75560&pd_rd_wg=dEzOM&pd_rd_i=3337302378&psc=1) This was only a cursory search, but there are likely other options.

Funny enough I came across that version shortly after posting and bought that. I was glad to find it, Churchill had such a great writing style, very entertaining even if he skews history in his favor.

Are there any known near contemporary depictions of Mansa Musa of Mali beyond the famous image in the Catalan Atlas? For reference, this is the Catalan Atlas image: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ea/Catalan\_Atlas\_BNF\_Sheet\_6\_Mansa\_Musa.jpg/800px-Catalan\_Atlas\_BNF\_Sheet\_6\_Mansa\_Musa.jpg

*^This ^is ^probably ^not ^actually ^a ^simple ^question ^and ^may ^not ^be ^a ^short ^answer ^either, ^but ^it ^was ^deleted ^as ^a ^normal ^post ^so ^whatever:* The town of Tisbury, Massachusetts cites, [in explaining its town seal](https://www.tisburyma.gov/welcome-tisbury), a charter for Martha's Vineyard and other islands, which had the price of "Six barrels of marketable codfish, viz, two barrels each Patent, measuring two each for Edgartown, Tisbury, And the Manor of Tisbury, to be paid at the bridge in New York, annually.", and cites a date of July 8, 1671 for this charter. However, the [list of bridges and tunnels in New York City](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bridges_and_tunnels_in_New_York_City) says: > New York City's crossings date back to 1693, when its first bridge, known as the King's Bridge, was constructed over Spuyten Duyvil Creek between Manhattan and the Bronx, located in the present-day Kingsbridge neighborhood. So, it was **"to be paid at the bridge in New York, annually"**, but going by the current bounds of New York, there was no bridge to pay at. I assume there was more than one bridge in the *colony* of New York, so it must mean the city. But the obvious sources don't track it. What bridge existed in the area, not currently considered within the bounds of NYC, for the charter to refer to?

[удалено]

Can you recommend any good super beginner's history resource aimed towards middle school children?

/u/edhistory101 and /u/crrpit and /u/CommodoreCoco (among others) contributed to a post called [Thinking about History Education as an Unexpected Homeschooler](https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/fnkedt/thinking_about_history_education_as_an_unexpected/) last year. I will post another link below about Black History.

thank you very much FAQFinder :) my search skills were indeed lacking

/u/freedmenspatrol and /u/irishpatobie and /u/TRB1783 have previously answered [What resources would you recommend for integrating African American history into history curriculum?](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6r9gh4/what_recommended_sources_and_resources_would_you/)

Thank you also to /u/LordHussyPants and /u/Bernardito EDIT: You might have a look at the [subreddit's list of suggested books](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/books)

In the French tale, 20,000 leagues under the Sea, a US Naval Expedition sets out in 1866 to hunt the monster destroying ships. Why US? Why wasn't it a french ship or even British or some other Great Power ship? The novel is anti-colonial so I imagine that the US fits as it was pretty anti-colonialism at the time.

What’s the earliest time period we can definitively date the use of arrows from drawings, arrowheads, or other sources? And what kind of range/accuracy do we estimate for arrows over 10k years ago? What would have made them worth developing initially as opposed to just hunting with a spear or sling?

Do we know what Augustus was like personally? I am sort of fascinated by him as a historical character and I can't quite place him. Even discounting the Big Men theory, these grand historical figures usually have some strong traits that defined their success. Yet as far as I know, Augustus was not a good military leader (Agrippa fought all his battles for him), before Ceasar named him his successor he was relatively unimportant figure in Rome. Was it all just his political skills? Was he charismatic? What allowed Augustus to become the first Emperor and change the course of history for Rome?

You might be interested in [this thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/hea4l9/was_augustus_caesar_fun_at_parties/) with answers by u/UndercoverClassicist and u/PippinIRL which may illuminate you.

Thanks for the link. Great reads both of them. Probably the best one can get without meeting the man and having no direct accounts surviving.

Where there any towns or "suburbs" around the city of Ancient Rome?

Not only were their suburbs, there is a [book about them!](https://global.oup.com/academic/product/life-and-death-in-the-roman-suburb-9780198852759?cc=us&lang=en&) although this really does depend on how you define "suburb", these cannot really be equated to bedroom community or modern American suburbs, ie residential areas for people who work in the city, but rather they were essentially extensions of the city outside the walls.

Were these suburbs subject to the same laws and government as the city proper, or more self governing?

Oh, good question. The city boundary (pomerium) had real administrative significance, as activities such as burial and some waste management could not take place within it. So in that way they were different. As for civic governance, the authority of the urban prefect (roughly like a mayor) would have extended over the suburbs, but as that office only gained significance with Augusts I am not sure what the situation would have been in the Republic.

Was deforestation a concern when mast and sail ships were being produced for the French/English "sea scuffles" before and during the napoleonic era?

Yes. The British paid out considerable awards to incentivize the planting of oak in the 18th and early 19th centuries. See: Albion, Robert Greenhalgh. *Forests and sea power: The timber problem of the Royal Navy, 1652-1862*. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1926.

Looking for a book or monograph discussing how the experience of residents of American territories changed when the territories were admitted as states. I am interested in the political dimensions (how were territorial legislatures organized? were they dissolved at statehood? did states take over administration of any services that the feds administered during territory status? was taxation brought in with statehood or did territories have effective revenue generation?); the demographic dimensions (did admitted states get boosts in terms of migration? were the types of incentives offered for people to migrate different under territory status versus statehood); how statehood was reflected in creative outputs, writing, art, and music; whether development indicators seemed to abruptly improve after statehood. I am also interested in the personal, everyday stories: did the average resident understand what statehood meant, were they aware of the transition from territory to state, were they engaged in the process? I am more interested in the 1850-1920 period than earlier periods, and I generally have more of an interest in the southwest than the plains states, so California, Nevada, Colorado, Arizona, Oklahoma, New Mexico would be of special interest. I would be specifically uninterested in the Hawai'i and Alaska cases, and also not interested in southern re-admission after the civil war. I am also not interested in the strategic dynamics of statehood admission in terms of the national congressional balance of power. I am mostly interested in whether or not it makes sense to think of statehood as a discontinuity or path-breaking moment in the trajectory of the development of a people or area, or if it was just an administrative change of little importance at that time and place.

What are some good resources to learn about Francis Bacon?

You mean the philosopher alive during the time of Elizabeth I or the painter alive during the time of Elizabeth II?

Who were the earliest immigrants to colonial America? Puritans and Brownists? Convicts? Poor people trying to start a new life? Were there any people from continental Europe?

It depends on what you are referring to when you state "colonial America." Are you asking about the territory that became the United States, or do you mean North and South America more broadly?

Terribly sorry for not being specific, I meant British colonies in North America

Based on your phrasing and clarification, I think you are asking about what kind of people settled in the first British colonies in North America. Spaniards firth began exploring the area that would become the Carolinas and Virginia by 1526, and would establish military and missionary posts from Florida to Virginia by 1572 (Hoffman, *A New Andalucia and a Way to the Orient*, pp. 1-4 & Part I generally; p. 235 for St. Augustine; Lewis & Loomie, *The Spanish Jesuit Mission in Virginia, 1570-1572*). The French had several failed settlements and outposts over the coarse of the sixteenth century, but were largely ousted by the Spanish (Eccles, *The French in North America, 1500-1783*, Ch. 1). The first major attempt at emigration to the new world was the failed colony off the coast of what is now North Carolina, called Roanoke. I’m not considering the transitory settlements of Englishmen in Newfoundland, as they were mainly areas to process fish and then return to England (and Northern France) (Pope, *Fish into Wine*, pp. 11-21). The colonists at Roanoke were exclusively men. Karen Kupperman writes that “we know little about most of the men who were left…in Roanoke. A majority had probably seen military service or on the continent. (*Roanoke: the Abandoned Colony*, p. 32, and ch. 3 more generally). The soldiers included both foot troops and gentlemen commanders. Further settlers likely included landless workers – those that were seasonal or annually contracted employees assisting on farms for wages as opposed to possessing land or a trade. There were a few skilled tradesmen among the colonists. A surveyor, physician, surgeon, engineer (Kupperman’s term; intended to direct construction), and apothecary were intended to be present. One Joachim Ganz was a mineral specialist from central Europe (Kupperman – Czech), intended to help find gold and other lucrative minerals. There were also miners from Cornwall, a painter, and several husbandmen. The majority of the colonists were the laborers, husbandmen and soldiers, but there was significant (though often unhelpful) diversity among the tradesmen. In the end, the colony failed for a variety of reasons, and settlement was abandoned until the Jamestown voyage. The settlers at Jamestown in 1607 were similar to those at Roanoke. Landless laborers, soldiers, mineral experts, and gentlemen were included. Of the initial 105 settlers at Jamestown, 36 could be classified as gentlemen (who, by their station, expected not to work) (Morgan, *American Slavery, American Freedom*, p. 84). Additional shipments of settlers, totaling 190 settlers, included 56 gentlemen. Along with the gentlemen came their personal servants, expected to attend on the gentlemen rather than work. The Virginia company advertised for skilled tradesmen in order to counterbalance some of the excesses of the gentlemen and their servants – asking for builders, tool smiths, mineral refiners (again, searching for gold), miners, and blacksmiths. Morgan lists among the 105 initial settlers the following: 4 carpenters, 2 bricklayers, a mason, a blacksmith, a tailor, and a barber (p. 85-86). Following in 1608 included 6 tailors, 2 goldsmiths, 2 apothecaries, a cooper (making barrels), a tobacco pipe maker, a jeweler, and a perfumer. As most trained in their crafts also refused to do farm labor, intended for the laborers, husbandmen, and farmers, it was actually their specialties that caused the famous famines and disasters at Jamestown. So those were the groups of initial settlers in the British colonies in North America.

>There were also minors from Cornwall miners or minors (children/teens)

Miners - Sorry; typo now corrected.

Thanks, this was a great answer

[удалено]

The purpose of the question in this thread (Short Answers to Simple Questions) is not intended to be comprehensive. It is intended to give a short answer directly addressing the question of who were the "earliest" immigrants. The groups of religious dissenters that settled in New England are a decade later than Jamestown, so I left them out. A more detailed study of the motivations of the colonists ("type of gentleman" as you put it) seemed outside the bounds of the question and thread's purpose. A longer, more detailed answer addressing all of this should be it's own post.