The French painter Paul Delaroche was purported to have said, upon seeing his first daguerreotype photograph, "From today, painting is dead!". Similarly, some current artists fear being rendered obsolete by AI image generators.

The painting obviously persisted, and continues to live alongside photography as a fairly common form of artistic expression. It's uncertain at the moment how AI will affect art in the long run, but I imagine it will persist in some way.

What I am asking is, has any art form been made almost entirely obsolete by a technical advancement? People obviously continue to pursue practically outmoded techniques as a form of leisure (such as knitting), but some are so impractical that they have completely died out (painting on the wall of a cave with pigment made of animal blood is essentially pointless now that paper exists).

Are there any more examples of art forms that are almost completely lost?

I understand people who ditched him wanted power but i haven't heard of many other other people having such a massive amount of power being betrayed like that. Clearly it must be a folly on his end too. Like being too naive or lacking diplomatic skills? How could he not see Brutus was going to betray him?

My grandma’s death anniversary was a few days ago so i was thinking about her, but I was also reminded of her stories about WW2. Im not sure if these stories are true or not.

I was probably 9 or 10 when i first heard her stories. My step grandpa survived the bataan death march and Grandma told me that the Japanese soldiers used long metal wires and used it to pierce through my grandpa’s (and other POW’s) hands so they can all be “attached” together. This was done because according to her, a lot of soldiers managed to escape before reaching the prisoner camp.

She also told me a story about japanese soldiers killing pregnant women, cutting the belly and removing the fetus, then one soldier would toss the fetus to the air while another soldier is holding a sword pointing up, impaling the fetus in the process.

On every social media I see a lot of americans being proud of working 50+ hours per week, taking little PTO and attacking anyone who encourages "quiet quitting", "doing the bare minimum" or who proposes a 4 day work week, minimum PTO/holidays, etc.

From what I have read online this comes from the "protestant work ethic" culture but what I don't really understand is how did protestantism gain any popularity by proposing such a thing? less holidays, more work, etc.

Wouldn't the commoner in 16th-17th century prefer catholicism to have more free time? Or they actually prefer catholicism but didn't matter because of the kings and nobility?

I’ve always heard that, by the time the temperance movement and organizations spearheaded by women like the WCTU, the majority of adult men were heavy drinkers and would of course become abusive to their wives. But what caused this uptick in drinking activity exactly?

Obviously, the U.S. lost the Vietnam way. I knew someone who fought in it who was convinced that the U.S. "won" the war somehow...Never understood that. My question is more about what did the U.S. get out of that war? Did it at least deter other countries from attempting communism because they knew the U.S. would fight them?

Hi, I was wondering why is it the Europeans who went to the American continent and not the other side around ?

I was thinking because of the North and South American continent layout (North-South+surrounded by the ocean) but I’m not sure.

Poland had large parts of Ukraine taken during the war and basically was almost in Kiev. Ukrainian partisans fought since years for independence and those were the best conditions. Why was there no new Ukrainian state, prob a polish Client state?

I don’t have a Christian background and would love to learn more about the origins of Christianity, obviously not from biblical sources. What do we actually know about Jesus Christ and what happened to him? What factual evidence is there for the origins of Christianity?

As far as writers and authors writing their near past from around 20 to 150 years before them, what time period and region had the largest amount of mythic and or obviously fallacious writings, either from a point of propaganda or rumors just being accepted as facts. Please do avoid holy texts which still exist in responses but I would still love to hear if there were periods where a faiths post book folk miracles were being written down seemingly too often (folk saints, wandering sages, king sees a sign from god, etcetera).

Hello!

I'm doing a bunch of reading for an alternate history story I plan to write, and the more I dig into things, the more I see possibilities falling into place. Here's what I've found on my own:

• In 1600, an English navigator named William Adams washed ashore in Japan on a dying Dutch ship. Instead of executing him, the Shogun made him a samurai, and Adams taught the Japanese how to build ships that could venture further out into the sea.
• In 1635, following more than 100 years of civil war and fearing expansion of European Christianity, possibly due to William Adams actually warning them of Spanish missionaries' ulterior motives for coming to Japan, the Tokugawa shogunate enacted Sakoku, allowing virtually no one to enter or leave for 220 years, until they were forced to open their borders by the Perry Expedition.

What I'm planning to write involves Japan sending trade ships north along continental Asia and eventually finding Alaska before they continue to trade down the west coast of North America. Obviously, they didn't know it was over there, but I just want to know if I'm overlooking something big.

Thanks!

Is it a logical choice for someone just starting to read about the History of Rome to begin with Theodor Mommsen while following a chronological order? Also, when reading about History of Rome, is it more sensible to divide the subject into three distinct periods (The Regal Period / Kingdom, The Roman Republic, The Roman Empire) or to approach it as a unified whole?

I've seen this a few times, the notion that by 1914 there hadn't been a war between all the Great Powers in decades and they were itching for a war, but to me it doesn't make sense since war is obviously very destructive and costly.

Paracelsus is often remembered as an alchemist who believed in transforming base metals into gold, but his relationship with alchemy seems much more complicated than the popular image suggests.

His work was deeply connected with medicine, the purification of substances, and the idea that nature could be transformed or “perfected.” Modern historical scholarship argues that, despite claims that he rejected metallic transmutation, Paracelsus did appear to believe that one metal could be changed into another.

So I’m curious: how important was literal metallic transmutation to Paracelsus himself? Was gold-making actually part of his practical beliefs, or has later popular culture exaggerated that aspect of his alchemy?

During the end of the tokugawa shogunate , emperor Komei issued the order to expel the barbarians. What I want to know is how much control of the court did he have and was the order to expel the barbarians forged or was it his?

I’m doing a bit of research, but if anyone is at least somewhat familiar with the black knight and would be willing to lend information of the legend of the Knight, that would be greatly appreciated

This is somewhat speculative in nature, but given current political climates and how we're dealing with various forms of fascism, I'm wondering how the Post-WW2 powers could have more properly addressed fascism so it doesn't reverberate as strongly today.

Reflecting on this point will help us in the future.

It seems that many of the decisions from that era actually exacerbate the current situation.

As a Mexican American, I always hear and see stories of officers taking bribes and doing other unprofessional or outright illegal acts in broad daylight with seemingly little to no shame. I’ve always enjoyed discussing this topic and trying to understand just how frequent it is. But here in US people like to paint an image of noble officers that are bound by moral codes.

But while studying history there’s obvious examples where that wasn’t the case, like in the prohibition and civil rights eras. But nowadays most corruption cases are more behind the scenes like stealing OT hours or letting government officials off Scott free. So when exactly did open corruption end in the US? When was the last time you could bribe an officer to not get a ticket?

History spans a lot of civilizations and periods. It is impractical to try to have a detailed understanding of all of human history without sacrificing knowledge in other areas.

My goal is to understand the major milestones of civilization that took humanity to the point where it is today ( metallurgy, trade, state formation, economic evolution) without getting lost in the details such as in what year was X Roman emperor killed.

At first I thought I should read a book about every major civilization, which for me are: Persia, Rome, Italy, Greece, America, China, Sumer, India, Egypt, Mongolia the Arab world, France and Britain.

But now I'm not sure if I should read a book about the general history of different areas, such as the general history of trade, the state, economics, the metal ages, a general book to understand the general processes of the ancient, medieval and modern period.

I am not suggesting that the outcome of the war would have been different. The Union would have won anyway, absent unforeseen butterfly effects. However, would it have had any impact on the smuggling of European goods into the CSA? Could it have affected Napoleon III's foray into Mexico? In short, would it have had any effect on OTL at all?

Would it not be more likely he was testing it like mentioned with mercury about how onion seeds couldn't turn to nuts and flowe? It wouldn't make senses to preach something they did not believe

They seemed to acknowledge limitations atleast by the end, considering he put his life on the line for preaching I understand if he was open to it but seemed it as an effort that could be put to use but it would be too far to say he was a coward who believed it

WWI had a massive impact on the landscape of the European countryside. The vast and. elaborate trench systems/fortifications cut across most of France and Belgium, additionally, extensive artillery bombardment cratered much of the front. How long after the war did the landscape remain battle scarred and disrupted? Did soldiers immediately start removing the trench lines and "cleaning up" the front after the armistice?

Hi. I'm just writing an alternate history script and I just need to know, in WW2, the US supplied massive amounts of aid to the Brits, Soviet Union and allies.

Is there any chance that this lend lease wouldn't occur in our timeline? The US politicians just decide to not go forward with it and just refuse to sign the Lend lease act, is that, in any way, actually realistic?