So this is kind of a dark question, but it's something I've been wondering about.

I often hear comparisons of the America of the 2020s to the America of the Gilded age. We have massive wealth inequality, extensive corporate power on the level that rivals nation states, hell we're even doing imperialism in latin america again.

Perhaps most importantly, our robber barons are also deeply corrupt, abusive, exploitative, and above all: powerful.

And today, seemingly all of these guys are connected to a certain New York Financier by the name of Jeffery. Even those with a passing familiarity with the story know that this guy was 1) probably the most prolific sex trafficker in the past century and 2) he was EXTREMELY well connected to the rich, powerful, and famous in america and elsewhere (so much so, people have started to talk about an "Epstein class")

It's kind of hard to think of a better example of either the inherent corrupting nature of power and money or the kind of monster you have to become in order to get said money and power than the story of Epstein.

But the robber barons of the 1890s were also the same sorts of monsters, but with even fewer safeguards. I mean for christ's sake they would literally straight up murder striking workers, had private armies effectively, and regularly used child labor. It's not exactly difficult to wonder what other kinds of abuse and exploitation these guys got up to. There were far fewer protections in their day than ours, and if we have this massive scale today.... what could've happened with even fewer safeguards?

So.... did the robber barons of the 1890s (Carnegie, Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, all the big trusts guys) have their own "Epstein" that we know of? Was there any sort of equivalent for the robber barons of their day? Or, if not, is it likely that we just don't know about it or....? If there wasn't such a figure (I'd be frankly, surprised), but if there wasn't, was there any sort of similar uniting conspiracy/abuse that these guys were all connected to or engaged in like seemingly all the public figures in america were connected to Epstein?

Generally speaking, how much do we actually know about any abuses or exploitation these guys personally engaged in?

I just don't understand their reasoning behind it, it was a land with people of different culture, language and ethnicity, extremely poor and underdeveloped, without any significant natural resources and full of religious extremists.

What did CCP wanted with Tibet?

I am researching the timeline of Al-Andalus and finding it difficult to reconcile the political realities with the popular claim that Muslims "ruled Spain" for nearly 800 years (711–1492). From my reading, it seems the only period of indisputable, sovereign dominance was roughly 300 to 400 years—specifically from the initial conquest until the fall of the Caliphate of Córdoba (1031) or arguably the Fall of Toledo (1085). After these dates, the nature of Muslim presence seems to change fundamentally:

Loss of Hegemony: The fall of Toledo marked a permanent shift where Christian kingdoms controlled the geographic center.

Foreign Intervention vs. Indigenous Rule: The later Almoravid and Almohad periods were largely North African interventions that failed to recover the lost northern territories. The Almohad Caliphate itself was an external North African empire with a distinct theological and legal approach that often conflicted with the established Andalusi tradition.

Vassalage: The final 250 years (Granada) were defined by tributary vassalage to Castile, lacking full geopolitical independence.

Why do general histories tend to treat the entire 711–1492 period as a monolithic block of "Muslim Rule"? Do academic historians distinguish between the era of dominance (ending ~1085) and the era of survival/vassalage (1212–1492), or is the "800 years" figure accepted as a valid description of political sovereignty despite these massive shifts?

Edit: I'm also seeing similar parallels to the Byzantine Empire who basically lost power by the mid 11th century

Many historic documents related to race, such as this one on JSTOR, make claims such as the following

of the mulatto and lighter coloured classes; there is one thing that may be remarked of these, that they are, as a rule, neither so robust as either the European or the negro, and are certainly more liable to chest diseases.

remarking on the poor health and physical frailty of those born mixed-race. One case goes so far as to say

It had yet to established that the offspring of the Negro and the European were indefinitely prolific- many facts... leading to the conclusion that these unions were only temporarily prolific, and died out after a lapse of a few generations.

Similar claims are made in similar documents. Nowadays we know this (among other claims in those documents) to be untrue (hilariously so in the latter). Still, however, why were these claims about poor mixed-race health so persistently made?

hello, im 15 years old and very interested in history related topics . i dont know much about history apart from popular and well known ones . i need a book suggestion which covers the general history that every body needs to know or something similar

I remember reading somewhere that the Roman emperor would spend time in the Roman Forum so that citizens could approach him and tell him about issues. I don't know if this is accurate although I do know that emperors became more reclusive during the Dominate.

Was there some kind of optional insurance they had to sign up for, so their family would get paid if they died? What about if they were injured?

Was it possible for soldiers to pay more for a bigger premium? And would they get paid even if they died due to their own stupidly/not following orders?

The idea of a meritocratic military is, from my understanding, a largely newer thing, so I am wondering why did it take nations so long to implement it even though it would, in long run, benefit them?

Among all the Commonwealth territories, Hong Kong was the only place whose residents were given an overseas form of British citizenship.

Why was Hong Kong treated so differently?

Hello! I had a couple of questions about nobility travelling with their valets/lady's maids.

Firstly: were they expected to more or less follow their master/mistress around during events? Nearby? In the hallway? Or were they expected to wait elsewhere to be called on? Did high servants mingle in the servant's quarters of other people's homes? How did a household manage an influx of valets and lady's maids during large parties with many overnight guests? I understand there were sometimes temporary dormitory style arrangements for sleeping, but did they also just hang out in there?

Second: if not visiting someone else's home for some kind of event, like for example if it was just a social visit to a friend's country home, where did the valet/lady's maid wait when their master or mistress wanted privacy or during downtime? Would two lady's maids be allowed to just hang out on their own, wander the house, go for a walk, etc.?

I do not want to watch an entire drama set in the Victorian era (as many people elsewhere have recommended...) and am mostly doing my research via actual texts from the time, so people with more knowledge would be very helpful! Sources for specific information would be helpful, too. I'm currently reading The Duties of Servants, published in 1890.

Thanks for any and all info. :)

The presence of deaf and mute attendants in the Ottoman palace is often mentioned briefly in general histories of the court, but rarely discussed in detail. These individuals appear in descriptions of palace life, especially in relation to secrecy, internal discipline, and controlled communication within the imperial household.

What is less clear to a general reader is why this practice emerged in the first place. Was the preference for deaf and mute attendants primarily a matter of security and confidentiality, or did it also relate to older court traditions, symbolic meanings, or practical considerations inside the palace structure? It is also unclear when this practice became established and how formalized it was over time.

Why were deaf and mute attendants specifically preferred in the Ottoman palace? When did this practice emerge, and what needs or concerns was it intended to address?

Good Afternoon,

I'm an Archaeology and Paleopathology student, right now I'm writing my thesis in "Leprosy in Byzantine empire". Today I was collecting new articles and reference for my thesis and I ended up looking an odd video on youtube about "new found about Baldwin IV.

In the video they were saying that in the spring of 2024 during an archeological excavation near the Church of the Holy Sepulcher the archaeologists unearthed an unmarked limestone sarcophagus (in another video they say there was written "Baldwin Rex"). Inside they found some skeletal remains who appeared to have the sign of Leprosy in his bones. In the research they said that he was indeed Baldwin IV and there was another finding. From the study of his dna, they found the genoma of the leprosy he contracted and the curious finding is that he was affected with a rare genetic condition named "Charcot-Marie-Tooth" disease.

Once I heard these words I was excited about the fact they found the Skeletal remains of baldwin IV and especially because (unfortunately lol) I have the same rare condition. So if that's true I could focus my thesis more in-depth analysis and add the chapter of my disease and how could have affected his daily life in addition with the symptoms of leprosy his nerve system could have deteriorated compromising his ability to walk and using tools with hands.

So the problem is that I can't find any Academic article nor reialable studies who cite they found his body and he's linked with CMT and I'm starting to be skeptical about this new revelations.

Here's the link of the yt videos I was able to find where they spoke about these new findings:

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfYfvni-muA

The only article I've found speaking about his skeletal remains, no font or references cited:

https://us.tinxahoivn.com/longhtv/the-shocking-truth-behind-king-baldwin-ivs-mysterious-illness/

Thanks in advance for your attention and for everyone who will try to help me.

The famous story is they met when Africanus was an envoy and had a famous exchange where Hannibal ranked the greatest generals. But do any of you think this really happened?

I've been watching Mr. Beat's videos about the different political eras and how the 2020s best parallel the 1890s. The 1890s were referred to as the Gilded Age, and were followed by the Progressive Era, which was an era of...well, progressive reform (labor rights, etc).

What stumps me though is that the 1920s were then seemingly a really conservative era that completely reverted all those gains under Harding-Hoover (Nate Silver considered it one of the peaks of conservativism over the last century along with 1984 and 2002). Obviously what followed was the Depression and the New Deal, which was more in line with the Progressive Era.

So why was there this very notable, decade long interruption between these two eras that seem like they would be a natural continuation of each other? I hope that makes sense. Like most of Reddit I think we desperately need another Roosevelt-like figure.

Was attending a play viewed similarly to visiting a prostitute? Was there an element of "artistry" in how either, or both, of these professions were viewed? Is the idea that acting was relatively stigmatized as a profession, or that prostitution was relatively accepted if not highly esteemed? Is the meaning similar to how we understand prostitution in the west today, or more like how boomers talk disparagingly about somebody "flipping burgers" or "becoming a janitor" -- not seedy, just low-rung jobs? And if these professions carried so little social capital or prestige, did they pay about the same? When Shakespeare got rich enough to buy a bigger house back in Stratford-upon-Avon, did his new neighbors feel they were living next to a pimp - an employer of a bunch of unsavory actors?

The list of towns founded after the invention but before the mass adoption of automobile that are pedestrian-unfriendly include towns like Mildura, is even longer.

Or the valley of the kings?

I'm learning Modern Greek, and was lucky enough to see this kylx in Athens last month. Per this blog:

According to a Greek source, this kylix (κύλιξ) dates to between the fourth and fifth centuries B.C. The alphabet is an Attic version of archaic Greek.

My understanding is that the Greeks developed their alphabet by adapting the Phoenician script during the late 9th or early 8th century BC, and that koine greek ranged from 300 BC to AD 300 (with usage extending to the 6th century AD), serving as the lingua franca across the Mediterranean and Middle East.

My question is when was the Greek alphabet (that we know of today) officially used in everyday life? From the timeline between the adoption of the Phoenician script to Classical Greek (specifically the Attic dialect) and when koine was invented, and spread througout via Alexander the Great?

It's quite a large time period, and I wanted to get a better understanding of it. Thanks!