What is the historical puzzle you most want to see answered???

[Chatterbox]

Here's the scenario:
You die and go to Heaven and St. Peter or whoever tells you you are allowed to ask the answer to one historical puzzle -- say, who did kill those Princes in the Tower after all?
Or:
A book is published and becomes an overnight sensation because it finally provides the definitive answer to one of those puzzles that you've always yearned to know about. You know, the ones that linger in your consciousness and occasionally float to the surface of your thoughts and make you wish that somehow, you could know what did happen to the Jamestown Settlers or Amelia Earhart.

Question:
Which historical puzzle do you most want a definitive answer to? (Beyond the princes in the towers, that is...) Be as far ranging in time and space as you want...

[Misfit]

Question:
Which historical puzzle do you most want a definitive answer to? (Beyond the princes in the towers, that is...)

That's no fair, that's the one I want to know. Back to the drawing board....

[boswellbaxter]

Well aside from the princes, I'd love to know why Buckingham rebelled against Richard III, whether Edward IV really did have a precontract with Eleanor Talbot, exactly how and when Edward II died, and whether Mary, Queen of Scots was involved in Darnley's murder.

[SonjaMarie]

I've been reading a book about Jack the Ripper in popular entertainment and it's reiterated that if someone were to finally definitely answered who Jack really was then people would lose interest in this mystery. Of course this doesn't stop me from wanting to know, oh well! LOL!

What was Anne Boleyn really like? How on earth did Anne of Austria manage to get pregnant after so many years of marriage to Louis XIII, when they didn't really like each other, was it really his afterall?

In a more modern day history, what the heck happened to Amelia Earhart?! Did John Wilkes Booth really die when they say he did?

SM

[Sheramy]

Where exactly is Alexander the Great's tomb?

[SonjaMarie]

Where exactly is Alexander the Great's tomb?

Where's Cleopatra's?! Is it underwater or some where else?

SM

[Leo62]

What happened to the crew of the Marie Celeste?

Who killed JFK? Was there really someone behind that grassy knoll? :D

Was there a real Atlantis and where is it?

[SonjaMarie]

Was Elizabeth I really a virgin, and if not, did she ever get pregnant?

SM

[Chatterbox]

I'm curious about the Dauphin. Was he smuggled to safety or did he die in imprisonment? (Just read an interesting NF book by Deborah Cadbury about this...)

[annis]

Posted by Sheramy
Where exactly is Alexander the Great's tomb?

I'd like to know the answer to this on as well, along with lots of other people.
It's commonly thought to have been destroyed in the earthquale and tsunami which struck Alexandria in 365, but it's also possible that the ruins of the Soma were kept a secret to prevent it becoming a victim to the Christiam zealotry which destroyed so many pagan shrines and structures.
See "Alexander's Tomb: The Two Thousand Year Obsession to Find the Lost Conqueror" By Nicholas J. Saunders

Cleopatra's tomb is very likely discovered - see earlier thread
http://www.historicalfictiononline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1647&highlight=cleopatra%27s+tomb

I'd like to know what happened to Ist century Queen Berenice of Judea, who disappeared from history after the death of her lover, the Roman Emoeror Titus.

[Ash]

Who built Stonehenge and why.

[MLE]

What happened to the undelivered portion of Inca Atahualpa's ransom.

[Ludmilla]

I don't think Genghis Khan's burial site is known either, but there have been rumors that it was discovered and removed (by Soviets, I think) or kept secret for political reasons. Are we close to finding it or the truth about what happened to it? It's one of those cloaked in mythology. I don't think Genghis Khan wanted anyone to know where his burial site was (if I remember correctly).

[Margaret]

What were the contents of all the books in the great library at Alexandria before it burned?

[Chatterbox]

Actually, I think if there is an afterlife, I would like it to feature the contents of the Great Library of Alexandria....

[annis]

Posted by Chatterbox
Actually, I think if there is an afterlife, I would like it to feature the contents of the Great Library of Alexandria....

And for afterlife dwellers to be granted the ability to read any of the world's written ancient languages so that they can access it :)

[Divia]

I was on the grassy knoll :D

Seriously though you guys took all my questions!

Well, I do have one. Was Joan of Arc raped in prison? So many people think so. Also, did she really see saints/angels..ghosts or was she super crazy? Er...I guess thats two.

[SonjaMarie]

I watched something ages ago that said that Joan was replaced with another girl on the stake, that would be interesting if it's true.

SM

[Margaret]

And for afterlife dwellers to be granted the ability to read any of the world's written ancient languages

I feel quite certain that in the afterlife the understanding of all languages, past, present and future, will be granted to us.

[SonjaMarie]

I wish we knew what was left unexcavated at Pompeii. For a site that's been worked on for over 200 years there's still a huge swath that's left untouched so far. Also what's left in the Villa of the Papyri (which is in Herculaneum)?.

SM

[Volgadon]

I don't think Genghis Khan's burial site is known either, but there have been rumors that it was discovered and removed (by Soviets, I think) or kept secret for political reasons. Are we close to finding it or the truth about what happened to it? It's one of those cloaked in mythology. I don't think Genghis Khan wanted anyone to know where his burial site was (if I remember correctly).

An interesting theory a Mongolian woman told me was that the region Genghis was buried in has a high uranium content. People who dug in the ground there would mysteriously die.
Perhaps you are thinking of Tamerlane's grave, which was opened by the Soviets.

[Ludmilla]

I read Jack Weatherford's book about GK several years ago, and my memory is now blurred, so I may very well be confused on my details about the myriad theories surrounding the burial site and other Mongol artifacts that have been discovered and lost or appropriated. I hope excavators don't find his burial site. I rather like the old legend that they diverted a river over his burial site to keep it hidden. It always seemed like a fitting end to an epic life (or, at least a cinematic one).

[Telynor]

I'm curious about the Dauphin. Was he smuggled to safety or did he die in imprisonment? (Just read an interesting NF book by Deborah Cadbury about this...)

Yep, they've proved that he died in prison. DNA tests on the contents of an urn in the traditional Bourbon burial site found matches to both Bourbon and Hapsburg lines, so it's pretty much been proved. The book on Marie-Therese pretty much gives it all.

And the remains of the last two missing Romanov children have been found and tested, and buried with their parents in St. Petersburg.

What I would like to find out is who was really the father of Tsar Paul -- Peter III or Sergei Saltykov? Given the physical features, I would say Peter III, but no one really knows except for Catherine...

[gyrehead]

Here's the scenario:
You die and go to Heaven and St. Peter or whoever tells you you are allowed to ask the answer to one historical puzzle --

I'd muff it by blurting out first "how the hell did I get HERE".

I really can't think of a one that is burning in the back of my mind. Even the princes in the Tower is more intriguing as a what if to me I guess.

Plus any questions on the whole conflation of the papacy is pretty much a wash if there is a St Peter.

Being a bit of an irreverant contrarian I'd probably ask what the shroud of Turin really is just in hopes there is a long line of people behind me whose illusions I can dash.

[Libby]

Well I'm researching RIII at the moment so the princes in the Tower is on my mind. But I'd also like to know who the mother of RIII's two illegitimate children was. I'd like my theory to be proven correct. ;)

[juleswatson]

Oooh, great thread. Love the library of Alexandria, isn't the whole thing tragic?

Writing British history, I'd love to know if there was a real King Arthur and why his life kicked off all the enduring myths about him.

And I'd love to know once and for all how England became Anglo-Saxon - how many people actually came here, and why? Were they asked in by the post- Roman British, or did they invade, or what? The definitive answer still seems to elude us...

[Kveto from Prague]

the true origin of the basques. especially where their language comes from.

and if a few doubtful historical personages actually existed: King Arthur, Shakespere, Achillies, King Lud, Jesus.......

Im sure there are some other things but id have to think about it.

[Chatterbox]

Gyrehead, LOL! I should have been more 'agnostic' in my scenario -- assuming there is an afterlife in which someone (St Peter or someone else) offers you this opportunity....

I struggled to read the Marie Therese book, I confess, and abandoned it halfway. It was as boring as she seems to have been in her latter years. (Mind you, if I'd had a childhood like hers, I, too, would have embraced boring with all my might...)

[chuck]

Will the real historic Arthur Rex, please come forward and tell us your story......

[Madeleine]

the true origin of the basques. especially where their language comes from.

and if a few doubtful historical personages actually existed: King Arthur, Shakespere, Achillies, King Lud, Jesus.......

Im sure there are some other things but id have to think about it.

If you're talking about William, it's pretty definite that he existed!:confused: Although there is some doubt that he may not have written all those plays.

[Telynor]

Oooh, great thread. Love the library of Alexandria, isn't the whole thing tragic?

Writing British history, I'd love to know if there was a real King Arthur and why his life kicked off all the enduring myths about him.

And I'd love to know once and for all how England became Anglo-Saxon - how many people actually came here, and why? Were they asked in by the post- Roman British, or did they invade, or what? The definitive answer still seems to elude us...

Read the book Catastrophe by David Keys. He uses several chapters to look at reasons why the Anglo-Saxons invaded England, and the whole mess of Europe in the sixth century. I found it to be fascinating. I've scribbled up a review here:

http://www.epinions.com/review/David_Keys_Catastrophe_A_Investigation_for_the_Ori gins_of_the_Modern_World_epi/content_479263690372 -- Catastrophe: An Investigation For the Origins of the Modern World (nonfiction)

[Chatterbox]

That is a fabulous book, Telynor! One of my favorite works of historical detection; very sweeping in scope.

[juleswatson]

Read the book Catastrophe by David Keys. He uses several chapters to look at reasons why the Anglo-Saxons invaded England, and the whole mess of Europe in the sixth century. I found it to be fascinating. I've scribbled up a review here:

http://www.epinions.com/review/David_Keys_Catastrophe_A_Investigation_for_the_Ori gins_of_the_Modern_World_epi/content_479263690372 -- Catastrophe: An Investigation For the Origins of the Modern World (nonfiction)

Thanks, Telynor! I think I heard this guy's theory a while ago so I know what the "smoking gun" is - it's very interesting. I still don't know if we know how many A/S bods actually came to the UK and was the first wave settlers with women and stock etc or were they male raiders? I'm not up to speed on the latest research, I have to admit. Still like to get in the time machine!

[Kveto from Prague]

Thanks, Telynor! I think I heard this guy's theory a while ago so I know what the "smoking gun" is - it's very interesting. I still don't know if we know how many A/S bods actually came to the UK and was the first wave settlers with women and stock etc or were they male raiders? I'm not up to speed on the latest research, I have to admit. Still like to get in the time machine!

Hi Jules. I think the amount of infusion of alglo-saxons into britain will never really be known. My own take is based on nothing but a feeling. I come from a country with a lot of germanic blood infused into slavic peoples. while we often have more slavic features, there is a lot of phyisical evidence of german infusion in peoples features (plus every sixth czech has a german surname)

Looking at it from that angle, I think the infusion of saxon genes was much less than we suppose. Physicaly your average Englishman/woman seems to have much more in common with your average scot, welsh or irish. and much less in common with your average scadinavian or german. now this is instinct more than anything, but it leads me to believe that the british population of england is still primarily of celtic/british decent than anglo-saxon. I imagine that the anglo-saxons were, like most conquerors, more limited to the upper ruling classes. the celtic/british were still the vast majority. Much like the later norman rulers, or scandinavian rus, or any other number of examples. but what they did impose was the language (which admittedly would have made trade much easier with the continent, than celtic languages)

anyway, I think the inhabitants of the british isles are much more brit/celt than saxon/german. especially since the isles havent had major infusions of other peoples until this last century. I mean no conquerors since 1066 and all that.

of course, my theory is based on NO evidence, so feel free to poke holes in it:-) and im sure youve researched it much more than me.

[Kveto from Prague]

If you're talking about William, it's pretty definite that he existed!:confused: Although there is some doubt that he may not have written all those plays.


yeah, i figured i didnt need to mention that that was what i meant:)

[Kveto from Prague]

Read the book Catastrophe by David Keys. He uses several chapters to look at reasons why the Anglo-Saxons invaded England, and the whole mess of Europe in the sixth century. I found it to be fascinating. I've scribbled up a review here:

http://www.epinions.com/review/David_Keys_Catastrophe_A_Investigation_for_the_Ori gins_of_the_Modern_World_epi/content_479263690372 -- Catastrophe: An Investigation For the Origins of the Modern World (nonfiction)

the book sounds way cool. but i took the pledge not to buy books for however long. but im curious about the smoking gun.

I always thought that Alfred Duggans take on the downfall of roman britain in "Family Favourites" made a lot of sense.

[juleswatson]

Looking at it from that angle, I think the infusion of saxon genes was much less than we suppose. Physicaly your average Englishman/woman seems to have much more in common with your average scot, welsh or irish

A genetic study done recently only found AS genes in abundance in East Anglia, from memory; the areas closest to Germany and the Netherlands, so yes, it does look that way. Since half my forebears are from North West England YAY that makes me Celtic after all :p

[annis]

I'll have to track down David Key's book- sounds intriguing. According to Gildas (http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/britannia/saxonadvent/saxonadvent.html)' "Adventus Saxonum" the Anglo-Saxons were mercenaries, brought in by Romano-Celtic leaders to help maintain the status quo after the withdrawal of the Roman army. Historian Gildas berates British ruler Vortigern for being the one to set in motion an unstoppable immigration/invasion of more Anglo-Saxons, probably as they realised there were easy pickings to be had in a country losing its cohesion. Whether there was a great flood of AS tribes or an ongoing trickle seems to be the current bone of contention.

Carla's novel "Paths of Exile" does an excellent job of depicting a society in transition as Anglo-Saxon tribes assimilate with the native Celtic inhabitants and each other, through both war and alliance, and bringing to life the melting-pot of cultures which was sixth and seventh century Britain.

[Celia Hayes]

Circling around to the original question about historical mysteries solved ... I'd like to know, once and for all, what happened to Sir Walter Raleigh's "Lost Colony (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roanoke_Colony)" the settlement in Virginia led by John White - whose colonists vanished in the space of a few years. Were they massacred by Indians, or assimilated, thinking they had been abandoned? There was a novel on Authonomy, called "White Seed" by Paul Clayton who speculated along those lines. Sorry, can't link directly, but I thought it was interesting.

[annis]

One of the things I found intriguing about Josephine Humphrey's Civil War era novel, "Nowhere Else On Earth" (http://www.post-gazette.com/books/reviews/20001112review628.asp) was the mention of the Lumbee Indians of South Carolina, long thought to have had a connection to Raleigh's "lost colony" of Roanoke.
http://www.sciway3.net/clark/freemoors/lumbee.html

[Carla]

A genetic study done recently only found AS genes in abundance in East Anglia, from memory; the areas closest to Germany and the Netherlands, so yes, it does look that way. Since half my forebears are from North West England YAY that makes me Celtic after all :p

Defining "AS genes" can be tricky. It's one thing to demonstrate that there are genetic similarities between modern populations in eastern Britain and modern populations on the other side of the North Sea in Germany and the Low Countries, quite another to say when, why and how the similarities arose. Just on the basis of geography I'd expect people living either side of the North Sea to be in contact with one another; and at the end of the last Ice Age the North Sea was a land plain and would be an obvious migration route for humans from the rest of Europe to re-populate Britain. Tacitus in the 1st century AD commented, "The red hair and large limbs of the inhabitants of Caledonia point clearly to a German origin", which indicates that there were similarities either side of the North Sea that were recognisable to an outside observer at least as far back as that.

[Kveto from Prague]

zeah, id guess that anzone from the british isles is primarily celtic with a possible smattering of Saxon, danish, norman what have you. as i said, im basing this on nothing but a feeling but ill give you outsiders example. without hearing them speak it is very easy to distinguish between british, dutch, and german tourists. each nation does have a "look" (with a great deal of exceptions obviously) however, it is very difficult to distinguish between english, scottish and even irish without hearing them speak.

id imagine the british isles are pretty unique genetically in that there hasnt been major infusions of new stock in about a thousand years (until the 20th century with england becoming a microcosm of its old empire)

but the idea that AS genes (i wont ask how they determine) being only sinificant in east anglia supports my "less anglo-saxon than we suppose" ideas.

it always gets dodgy when you start talking about genetics by groups of peoples, because most get a bad taste in their mouths. a friend of mine thinks this is a shame, as he does studies for diseases based on ethnic origins. why certain ethnicities are more or less suseptable to certain illnesses and how we can help those more suseptable. as long as you dont get into superiority or inferiority (which anyone over the age of 5 realises is silly), its fine and even helpful to acknowledge that there are different "bloods".

[juleswatson]

Really trying not to threadjack here!

Defining "AS genes" can be tricky. It's one thing to demonstrate that there are genetic similarities between modern populations in eastern Britain and modern populations on the other side of the North Sea in Germany and the Low Countries, quite another to say when, why and how the similarities arose. Just on the basis of geography I'd expect people living either side of the North Sea to be in contact with one another; and at the end of the last Ice Age the North Sea was a land plain and would be an obvious migration route for humans from the rest of Europe to re-populate Britain.

Good points Carla. The study was a university scientific one (can't remember the guy's name) so they had a way of deciding which were more modern genetic markers. Re: the North Sea plain, yes, but pretty much everyone in the UK would share that base genetic material dating back that far. He was finding differences that had arisen after mesolithic times, tracking Norse populations in Orkney versus Celtic, and as he said, "Anglo-Saxon" which had a concentration of these later markers only in East Anglia and Low Countries. I am not an expert and don't know the details :) If the riddle of the Anglo-Saxon transition has not been answered yet (maybe it has, I'm out the loop) I'd love it to be. But guess it's just a slow amalgamation of archaeology, historical sources, genetics etc etc. You know more than I do about it!

[Carla]

Really trying not to threadjack here!



Good points Carla. The study was a university scientific one (can't remember the guy's name) so they had a way of deciding which were more modern genetic markers. Re: the North Sea plain, yes, but pretty much everyone in the UK would share that base genetic material dating back that far. He was finding differences that had arisen after mesolithic times, tracking Norse populations in Orkney versus Celtic, and as he said, "Anglo-Saxon" which had a concentration of these later markers only in East Anglia and Low Countries. I am not an expert and don't know the details :) If the riddle of the Anglo-Saxon transition has not been answered yet (maybe it has, I'm out the loop) I'd love it to be. But guess it's just a slow amalgamation of archaeology, historical sources, genetics etc etc. You know more than I do about it!

As I understand it (and it's a long time since I studied genetics, and the field has moved on in leaps and bounds since then), it's possible to deduce the relative age of mutations by the way they cluster, so you can build up a sort of 'family tree' from ancient to recent. What I'm less convinced about is whether the branch points can be dated accurately to within a few centuries, which is what would be needed to use them to test hypotheses about historical events. The molecular mutation clocks I'm familiar with mostly work on timescales of thousands or even millions of years.

When the glaciers first started to shrink at the end of the Ice Age, the land bridge between what's now Britain and what's now continental Europe extended a long way west, so Brittany, Cornwall, Wales and Ireland were all connected by land for a while, providing a potential migration route north up the Atlantic coast from what's now Spain and SW France, as well as the eastern route across what's now the southern North Sea. Coastal cultures wouldn't necessarily have found the mouth of the English Channel a barrier even after it had started to open up in the west, so migration wouldn't necessarily have stopped even when sea levels rose. If people used both routes (not, as far as I know, proven either way) there's potential for genetic population differences dating back that far.

I don't think there's a definitive answer (and there may never be), so if you get the ride in the time machine, let me know :-)

Had better stop hijacking this thread now :-)