Asked this on AskHistorians and never got a response, so figured I'd try it here.

Months back, I finished The Fountainhead and it got me thinking about Rand's influence on our world - objectivism is of course tied to conservativism through its adoption of laissez-faire economic policies & individual responsibility.

That makes sense, but what I don't understand how Rand even managed to accumulate such a strong presence in a movement that, especially back then, was opposed to immigration, was pro-religion, and obviously opposed Russian infiltration in the United States. How did Rand manage to evade all three barriers compared to other contemporaries who were probably preaching the same general beliefs?

So I have heard varying things about how if Lincoln had lived and was in charge of Reconstruction that his plan would largely have been the same as Johnson's plan though perhaps handled slightly better and I have also heard that if he were in charge that we would all be holding hands and singing kumbaya etc.

Can anyone shed some more light on what realistically would of have been the case?

Imagine you're a bandit, camping out a road, looking for a mark. You spot someone who at first looks promising, but then you see that they're armed with something. You think to yourself, "Well, if they have one of those, they must be dangerous. I'll look for someone else."

What weapon would you have expected that person to be carrying?

Winemaking could be profitable considering how much people drank back then.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7ER08F9rGo

I'm not referring to his claim to have "been there". I get that his undue belief in reincarnation was as much a blind spot for him as his undue disbelief in shell shock. I'm just referring to his description of the battle in question, though I'm not sure what battle he's referring to and where to find out more about it. Most of it sounds plausible for ancient history (eg. Romans invading a city), but the part where he says the women involved stripped the victims of their tunics and left them to lie there naked sounds a little odd. Were they concerned the soldiers could be concealing further weapons underneath their tunics? If so, how easily could one have concealed them without risking injuring oneself with one's own weapon?

I often read that the correlation between smoking and health problems was drawn in the 1950s-60s, so I wonder what reason would people have to quit smoking before that? Were people simply not liking it or feeling bad side effects socially acceptable reasons, when smoking was seen as something so glamorous at the time?

While the Portuguese colonial war was unwinnable, in the sense that the international community would never fully accept Portugal so long as it maintained an overt colonial empire, the Portuguese were substantially closer to military victory on the eve of the Carnation Revolution than the Germans were in 1918. My understanding is that they were losing in Guinea-Bissau rather severely, were slowly losing in Mozambique, yet had achieved military victory in Angola and were on the cusp of political victory there.

Again, the Portuguese colonial war wasn't winnable but political rhetoric has a loose relationship with the truth and with a few distortions it would have been relatively easy to whip up a propaganda narrative.

Perhaps there is such a myth and it has escaped mention in English language sources.

EDIT: I removed a reference to Modern Portuguese politics so as to comply with the subreddits rules

Regardless of your personal opinions on these individuals, they're easily two of the most influential figures during the Civil Rights Movement and American history overall. Everyone speculates on Lincoln not getting assassinated but what about Martin and Malcolm. They don't get killed; how does this alter race relations today?

I would love to know

I know that there used to be a generations of actors called the rat pack, and that through the years many celebrities have played on the concept. For instance, the brat pack for young actors in the eighties and the frat pack for a group of comedian actors in the 2000/. Even George’s Clooney ocean movie’s succeeded in part because of the association that generation of actors were able to create between themselves and the rat pack. But what other names have been used to describe different generations of actors.

For example: Two men serving in the American Civil War in the same company, in the middle of the same battle, describe the events far differently to one another in their journals which historians would debate which one is more accurate.

Today, people in the United States frequently bemoan how the US sees few 3rd party challengers, especially with the increasing disdain for both parties. People often say that the way the American system is set up leads to a natural duopoly, with third parties not being able to enter.

However, if you look at American history, there are a handful of cases that buck this narrative. Although outside of the wake of collapses of major parties, a third-party candidate hasn't been elected, there have been several presidential elections where a third-party candidate has performed extraordinarily well compared to contemporary expectations. The 1892 election, for example, saw a decent performance from the agrarian Populist party. The 1912 election, known for having Theodore Roosevelt run as a 3rd party candidate, also saw a decent performance from the socialist Eugene Debbs, while the 1924 election saw a major performance from the progressive Robert M. La Follette. Post-war examples would include the Dixiecrats of the Civil-Rights era, John B. Anderson in the 1980 presidential election, and Ross Perot's campaigns in the 1990s.

In many cases, such as Robert M. La Follette or Ross Perot, these weren't parties that were built up over decades as well; Perot ran as an independent in 1992, before then creating his party for the 1996 elections, while La Follette's was created solely to serve as the engine for his 1924 presidential campaign. While it is true that these guys never won, with Roosevelt's and Perot's runs in particular being heralded as examples of the dreaded "vote-splitting" phenomenon associated with third parties, why would prior elections see third party candidates that are somewhat viable, as opposed to today when such a thing seems rather unthinkable in the minds of most Americans?

It's taken for granted that the British public very much backed their government in WWII. But to what extent, especially during the riskiest part where invasion was a big threat?

In the 19th century, Denmark got rid of the Stvnsbånd, a serfdom-like system that left military-age peasants to be exploited by large landowners. It was abolished in 1788 as part of the agricultural reforms. The reforms took hold in the early 19th century, with peasants gaining access to private property. However, Denmark did not industrialize quickly, and the competitiveness of some products, such as grain, with other countries that had cheaper prices was a problem. What negative aspects did the agricultural reforms leave in Denmark? Was it more good or bad?

Say the Byzantine emperor upon hearing news of Mongol warriors rushing through the lands decides to placate Khan’s ego and play vassal with him, would these invaders help him or his descendants to retake Anatolia or help defend the realm?

1. The Bohemian (San Francisco 1872)
2. The Hope Club (Providence 1875)
3. The University Club (San Francisco 1890)
4. The Metropolitan Club (Washington DC 1863)
5. The Automobile Club de France (Paris 1895)
6. Le Cercle de l’Union (Paris 1917)
7. Sällskapet (Stockholm 1793)
8. The Athenaeum (London 1824)
9. The Duquesne Club (Pittsburgh 1873)
10. The Lotos Club (New York 1870)
11. The Pacific Union Club (San Francisco 1889)
12. The Knickerbocker (New York 1871)
13. The Reform Club (London 1836)
    
14. The Brook (New York 1863)
15. White’s (London 1693)
16. The Cosmos Club (Washington DC 1878)
17. The Garrick Club (London 1831)
18. The Raquet and Tennis Club (New York 1876)
19. The Porcelain Club (Harvard 1791)
20. The National Golf Links (Southampton 1908)
21. The Society of the Cincinnati (1783 New york)
22. Circolo della Caccia (Rome Italy, 1934)
23. Círculo de la Unión (1919 Spain)
24. Société de Lecture (Geneva, Switzerland)
25. Club de l'Union (Lyon France)
26. Cercle Royal Gaulois (Brussels Belgium)
27. Griffin Club (Los Angeles 1913)
28. California Club ( Los Angeles 1888)
29. The Jonathan Club (Los Angeles 1895)
30. Grémio Literário (Lisbon, 1846)
31. Clube de Lisboa
32. Sociedade de Geografia de Lisboa
33. Clube Militar (Brazil)
34. Jekyll Island Club (Georgia 1886)

I'm familiar with the scholarship on lawyers in the French revolution and the terror but I'm struggling to find sources on how ordinary people engaged with courts during this period.

Hi all,

Essentially, I'm trying to get a better understanding of how the manorial system worked in Medieval England. I'm given to understand that most villages had a local manor lord, who owned most of the land, and to whom the serfs or villeins were bound.

What I want to know is, were these styles of manor lords ubiquitous, or were there villages and hamlets that were outside of this system? Did every piece of farmland belong to a manor, or only some areas?

In particular, I know there were plenty of free peasants who owned their own farmland, but was their land typically separate from the manorial system or would the land they owned still be part of the local lord's demesne? Did free farmers live alongside serfs, or were they typically from separate communities?

I'm currently working on a personal rewrite of Disney's Beauty and the Beast ( 1991 ) and I am trying to make it somewhat historically accurate.

I've decided that my rewrite of BatB will take place between 1730 and 1740 as the original book was published in 1740 and the Beasts/Prince Adam's cursed lasted for 10 years. The location will be both in and around the commune of Riquewihr in Alsace-Lorraine as said town was the reference for the town in the 1991 movie.

I've decided that Prince Adam/The Beasts Castle will be a completely fictional Château located somewhere in the Vosges near Riquewihr.

For my rewrite, I need to figure out where "Prince" Adam would have most realistically fallen into the French royal peerage circa 1730 for both he and his family to live in the area I have chosen for my rewrite.

I think it's pretty likely that he wouldn't be a Prince but that's fine as long as he's still nobility in some capacity. I also think it'd be better to make him a more obscure royal rank because it seems weird that no one noticed the disappearance of a prince in the original movie.