Recent comments in /f/history

LaoBa t1_j10buna wrote

The Drenther Crusade was a military campaign launched against the inhabitants of Drenthe with the approval of the Papacy in 1228 and lasting until 1232. It was led by Willibrand, Bishop of Utrecht, commanding an army composed mostly of Frisian crusaders.

The crusade was part of a longstanding conflict[a] between the Drenthers (or Drents) and the bishopric of Utrecht over the prerogatives of the bishop and the religious practices of the Drenthers. The incident which turned the conflict into a crusade was the killing of Bishop Otto II of Utrecht in the Battle of Ane in 1227. Willibrand received papal authorization for a crusade on the grounds, it appears, that the Drenthers were heretics for defying their bishop. He preached the cross in Frisia between the summer of 1228 and the winter of 1230–31. There were several battles, but the crusade ended inconclusively in September 1232.

Hendrik van Borculo was granted the Coevorden fief. In turn, the Drenthers erected a Cistercian nunnery in repentance for the slaying of Otto II and his followers at Ane.[ When the conflict conclusively ended in 1240, the bishop's princely authority was intact but his manorial authority was weakened (soon to disappear completely) and the Drenthers were amnestied.

1

TheGrubble t1_j108x88 wrote

I'm in my late 30's but my first exposure to history told as a story was watching the James Burke show Connections when I was like 5.

I understood very little of the details, but I loved the overall story of how technology progresses in small steps instead of big leaps. I've watched the series many times over through the years, and picked out more and more things as I grew up.

I consider it a large part of the reason why I like history so much.

2

Kind_Parsnip720 t1_j107d7k wrote

Horrible Histories books and tv show were absolutely great as a kid. Now I watch documentaries and listen to podcasts on HistoryHit (historical streaming service) as an adult.

3

Hyphenated_Gorilla t1_j107b2o wrote

Curiosity channel has great kid history/science programs, well worth the subscription.

They are so well done my children in gradeschool has even sat with me through entire episodes of evolution :P

1

LowChemical8735 t1_j101ail wrote

I loved the Horrible History books. They’re not always accurate, but they’re entertaining. When I was a kid my parents were pretty laid back about what I read because it was always educational, however that meant 6/7 year old me reading about the Holocaust in an encyclopaedia and seeing photos that I still can’t unsee. Also the atomic bombs and their aftermath… the teacher wasn’t too impressed when I started talking about that in our WW2 history lesson.

It must be tricky getting the balance right, because it’s so easy to gloss over things, oversimplify events to the point where it’s no longer accurate, or kids can be exposed to the absolute horrors of humankind when they’re a little too young.

I quite liked reading encyclopaedias because they contain a lot of factual information, but not too much at once and not too much detail. I think that’s pretty good for kids because they’re learning, but the entrees are quite short so their attention can be kept. The basic detail they give is also just enough to get the interest of a child so they can then learn how to seek further information about something they’re interested in

7

StepSideways77 t1_j0zzgva wrote

Tithe's for the church, taxes for the state... That "Render onto Caesar..." line must have stuck out to the early royal adopters. The big guy, JC, tells all to pay taxes, mentions giving god his cut as well. A suspect line, possibly inserted... very convenient for secular rulers, and the church.

1

HUP t1_j0zxmp2 wrote

Omaha wouldn't have been nearly as bad if there weren't so many artillery and bombing miscues. Naval artillery hit short and caused a lot of deep underwater holes that drowned heavily ladened soldiers. And aerial bombardment fell far behind the line of defense. There were supposed to be a lot of craters from bombing on the beach to give cover. Instead Omaha was pretty flat with few places to hide from German fire.

17

kojohn11 t1_j0zwjef wrote

Was George McClellan a really bad general? I’m reading Team of Rivals by Doris Kearns Goodwin and just cannot believe how bad of a general he seems. Is he commonly recognized by military historians to have been a bad general? He strikes me as someone who must have gotten where he did solely on a familia basis. He seemed very narcissistic, cocky, but yet ultimately inept. Were there any remarkably tactful acts he performed? Additionally, it also seems like he remained in a position with a modicum of responsibility solely because he was hyped up, but there doesn’t seem to be any legitimacy behind the hype.

1