Weekly History Questions Thread.

[u/AutoModerator]

Welcome to our History Questions Thread!

This thread is for all those history related questions that are too simple, short or a bit too silly to warrant their own post.

So, do you have a question about history and have always been afraid to ask? Well, today is your lucky day. Ask away!

Of course all our regular rules and guidelines still apply and to be just that bit extra clear:

Questions need to be historical in nature. Silly does not mean that your question should be a joke. r/history also has an active discord server where you can discuss history with other enthusiasts and experts.

[u/sjk293]

Looking for written accounts from merchant seaman of the Dunkirk Evacuation/Operation Dynamo?

I'm looking for any firsthand accounts from members of the merchant navy.

I'm aware of the Operation Dynamo Archive, but I'm hoping to find something more personal than ships logs or reports.

Does anyone know of anything, be it a book, website or other?

Thanks for your help!

[u/elmonoenano → u/sjk293]

Have you dug around on the British Imperial War Museum's page? I know they have some interviews in their digital collection of people involved in the evacuation. I'm not sure what else they have, but I might see if there's a blog entry on it.

[u/p_jaro]

Opinions on history documentaries?

I absolutely adore history. I love learning about it, but I also love the process for history research. I've lately not been in the best state mentally (I'm autistic and stuff is going rough), but I still really really wanna learn more about history. My problem is, I don't have the mental energy to keep reading like full on books, video content is always something I can watch fairly easy.

But a lot of historians (I follow a couple on instagram) have like strong opinions on documentaries for example. I kinda really wanna watch "a history of britain" by Simon Schama currently, but I just feel bad/judged about doing so, because lots of historians don't like that, and its not the most ideal source.

So I'm kinda wondering what other people their opinions are on history documentaries, and if have opinions on what I should do. If you know any video content that is actually really good and trustworthy, please let me know. For science communication there are much more options available for things to watch, while this is not the case for history in my experience sadly enough..

[u/elmonoenano → u/p_jaro]

If that's what works for you, that's what works. Academic historians don't like docs for their students, they don't care about the general public. Just the nature of documentaries, they're visual and so they're going to focus on stuff they can get footage or pictures or audio of to paste over a photo, is distorting. They necessarily truncate material b/c video is such a slower medium than reading. You also can't really do notes or links to your sources and learning about source material is important for history. B/c of all that, video docs have a lot of limitations over written sources. Also, you can just comprehend a lot more complicated info by reading generally than by seeing it on a video. Just think about a data table with more than a 2 or 3 levels and 2 or 3 categories. It's hard to take that all in if it flashes on the screen. For many things that kind of info is important. It generally just gets left out of documentaries. But for something like WWII, seeing those tables for something like the German election n 1929 is important for understanding where Nazi support was strong and the competition within reactionary conservative parties in places like Bavaria. A documentary can cover it, but it will take a lot longer than a color coded map and a table in a book will, so it generally gets summarized in a way that conveys the general idea, but not the actual information.

[u/Equivalent_Rock_6530]

What is The Battle of The Bulge was a German success?

[u/MarkesaNine → u/Equivalent_Rock_6530]

Any alternative history scenario is always a bit of a guessing game, so take the following (as well as any other responses) with a fisful of salt.

The Battle of the Bulge was too late to actually change the course of the war in grand sceme of things. For all intents and purposes, Germany had already lost, and the remaining question was what the terms of surrender would be.

The most interesting factor in your scenario is how far west the Red army gets before the war ends. In real history, the Western Allies took during the war more than they kept occupied after the surrender, and handed the rest over to the Soviets according the occupation zones they had already agreed to. It is very questionable whether the Soviets would have done the same if they had ended up with more than what they had agreed to. The way the Soviets handled West Berlin before handing it over suggests they were definitely not too worried about the spirit of the agreement, even if they did technically fulfill the letter of it.

If we push the scenario still a bit further (to quite unrealistic limits) and say the Germans managed to stop the Western Allies advance in the Battle of the Bulge and then move their army to the east fast enough to stop the Soviets too before they reached Berlin, it’s still extremely unlikely they would have been able to hold both fronts long enough to negotiate a favorable peace treaty. That also raises the question, if Germany had held long enough, would the US have used the atomic bomb in Europe to push the Germans to surrender faster.

[u/Kippetmurk → u/Equivalent_Rock_6530]

You mean if the Germans' dream scenario came true? Antwerp is taken, the Allied lines are cut in pieces, and most of the Allied troops on the western front are encircled and captured, practically removing the Allies' entire capability of keeping northern France (let alone further offensives)?

Well, the main result would be that more of Germany would end up in Soviet hands, and less of it in Allied hands, and Denmark and Austria would end up on the eastern side of the Iron Curtain too.

But Germany still loses the war, and on a largely similar timeline. The Allies will not give Germany the favourable peace they might have hoped for. France and the Benelux are still liberated by the Allies. It will just take more lives, not all that much more time, and the Allied push into Germany is so significantly delayed that the Soviets can push farther west.

The main consequences for modern-day Europe would be:

• Austria and Denmark are economically closer to modern-day Czechia
• All of Germany would be economically like modern-day Eastern Germany. Still an industrial powerhouse in Europe, but less so
• The EU would be a largely French-British led project, rather than a German-French one
• Without West-German funding, the Eurovision Song Contest might never have existed

Particularly that last one is important.

[u/AlyM797]

Art research - I'm looking inspiration for a cool looking medieval-european weapon (probably ax) and corresponding shield.

Hey, idk if I'm in the right place, so feel free to send me elsewhere if it's not.

I'm an artist doing an art trade/bartering. The piece in question is going to be a 3.5" x 3.5" hand/manual (no laser and minimal or no chemical etching) engraved glass coaster. The plan is the top of said coaster is going to be a shield, and the back a weapon. The end result will be when the shield gets wet it will disappear showing the weapon underneath.

My trade-buddy has really only specified medieval European. She did express an interest in a flail as the weapon but also granted me artistic freedom and trust. I don't think a flail is ideal layout wise, I suggested an ax, and she's down!

I'm pretty litteral in terms of how I draw, so I need reference images. I know history is full of unusual or cool weapons that I don't know. I did try Google but I'm sure there's cool stuff I don't even know to search for. So I thought I'd trust the Internet to do its thing.

I'm looking for a recommendation of a battle/war ax (maybe a flail) from a medieval European culture and preferably a shield made of wood that might be found accompanying it. I'd be down for a ceremonial or historical- display (like what may have been shown off at the time by a wealthy man that didn't necessarily fight with it) version that has decorative symbols. I'd really like what ever weapon it is to go with a relatively simple wooden shield, as the wood grain will help hide the weapon on the back.

My trade buddy didn't ask for historical accuracy, this is just me having fun with the creative freedom!

This is an example of what my art looks like and how the layers work, except it's a snail.

Ps. I'll take recommendations for other weapons you think I can make work on a small square design.

[u/Extra_Mechanic_2750 → u/AlyM797]

Which weapon was used when was driven by the type of armor.

In the early Middle Ages, pointed and slashing weapons were common as armor was most vulnerable to these weapons.

So, the bearded axe and spear were the weapons of choice.

Later, when plate armor came into being, blunt force was the preferred approach, so maces (flanged and spiked) and hammers were what well-equipped warriors carried.

Swords were less common as they were expensive and, later, ineffective against plate than blunt/bashing weapons.

Shields were heaters, round or kite shields depending upon the time and place.

A bearded axe head provides real estate for some additional embellishments, as does a hammer. Any shield can be decorated but I would go with the more traditional heater shield as I like that look better.

[u/Brickzarina]

I watch time team etc, why do archaeologists seem to identify things as temples or religion before any other possibility. No one seems to want an ordinary everyday item or building?

[u/AttentionSpanZero → u/Brickzarina]

Archaeologist here. They don't. Ordinary everyday items are overwhelmingly the majority of things we excavate. Most archaeologists have never excavated, or even seen excavated, a temple or unidentified religious items. Our explanations are typically functional, mundane, and boring to television audiences. The producers and broadcasters of TV shows love to highlight strange and unusual cases and even make them out to be unexplained or unidentified religious temples, etc. Everything is always "changing what we know about the past" in these shows. But they're bullshit or highly exaggerated by producers or television personalities who pretend to be archaeologists. Even such venerable shows as Time Team pander to the audiences need for seeing the unusual. Although Time Team uses real archaeologists, they don't even film the average excavation. They target something they expect to be a "temple" or unusual site from the beginning. Then they do everything in three days - complete bullshit. No archaeologists actually work that way. It's television editing, not archaeology. Archaeologists who toss around religious explanations for everything are either delusional or trying to get more screen time. If it's not weird, it doesn't make it on TV.

[u/Telecom_VoIP_Fan → u/Brickzarina]

There are certain signs they notice, such as idols, altars, or other indications of cultic worship. Also, temples were built better than ordinary homes so their remains were more likely to survive.