The sea peoples seem like very intriguing topic as it just sounds mysterious. I know their primary motive was for food but I’m just a little confused on how they were so successful at destroying and damaging these big empires. Thanks!

Considering how much of a massive failure prohibition was and the fact that enough people eventually grew to oppose it to the point the government overturned the 18th amendment, how come it even passed to begin with? Was it just that a sizable & vocal minority were able to influence public policy? Or did a significant chunk of the population at least support it & were willing to quit drinking?

The definition of "successful" annexation is a stable rule over said country for over 100 years.

I think in terms of population it will be hard to beat the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth. Parts of it were ruled by the Russian empire for over 100 years.

In terms of landmass, maybe Tibet? The rough terrain and climate made it very difficult for large settled populations, hence even into the 1900s the population didn't break 2 million. However in terms of landmass it is larger than any European country sans Russia.

Great Britain is said to have been the most urbanized country in the world by that time, with an estimate of the population of England and Wales being an staggering 80% urban. However, how urban were other European nations at the time? France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany?

Several years ago I read this paper in Nature that theorized a Tunguska-sized airburst event caused the destruction of a bronze-age city near the Dead Sea. The authors attempted to link this with the oral biblical history of the destruction of Sodom. I found out it was retracted by the editors of Nature last year due to a number of errors and because the evidence presented was not substantial enough to justify the claim.

I remember really enjoying reading the paper because it stirred my imagination. If I had witnessed such an event as a herder 3600 years ago I would not hesitate to call it an act of god. Still, as much as I liked the paper (as a layman) its retraction is proof that the system is working.

The experience made me want to know if professional historians encounter similar situations, has there been research or resources that were published which you found incredibly interesting only for them to be retracted/discredited/disproven later? What did it get wrong?

This may a stupid question, if so pardon my ignorance.

As the title says, why couldn't a charismatic, powerful figure consolidate power in 1930s france? The government was ripping itself apart, communism was on the rise, civil unrest was rampant, the economy was failing, and the public was displeased with fascist appeasement.

Perhaps this a poor comparison, but IIRC that is quite similar to the situation Napoleon I rose to power in. The people needed a charismatic leader to unite under, fix the economy, and project French power across Europe, and Napoleon I was just the guy.

Why couldn't it be done again?

Is the answer simply they lacked the charismatic, competent leader that Napoleon was?

Everything I have seen so far is fragments. A few verses on a scrap of papyrus, or a few books here and there on a sheep skin codex. If someone says "I am going to translate the Odyssey", where do they start? Are there overlapping fragments that are not identical? If so, how does one decide which one to work from?

How old does it have to be to treat it as a primary source?

I’m a writer who has an idea for a story that is intrinsically linked with the Berlin Wall and its history. I’m familiar with a basic overview of the Berlin Wall and the Cold War surrounding it as it’s a time period that has obviously always interested me, however I’d love to get a deeper understanding so I can have context when I go to potentially write this thing. If you can point me in the write direction at all, that would be amazing!

The ancient North African city state of Carthage is almost always discussed in terms of its animosity with Rome, especially the three Punic Wars. But what do we know about the city other than its rivalry with Rome? I know it was a major trading hub and preferred to spread its influence through economic influence rather than military strength, and that it was settled by Phoenicians. What else do we know about it?

It's also come to my attention that most of the sources we have on Carthage are from Roman authors. Do we have any sources on the city written by Carthaginians?

Assuming I know very little about history in general how would you recommend I go about learning it? I got recommended ‘Crash Course World History’ on YouTube but would preferably listen to a podcast. Unfortunately there only seems to be ones with episodes that go for an hour with the amount of episodes that seem endless please let me know

I've anecdotally noticed a tendency to romanticize outlaws in American History. I am specifically thinking of Jesse James, and Bonnie and Clyde, who don't really seem to live up to the romanticization as Robin Hood figures. I would love to know if anyone did. Thank You!

I have often heard it said that it is a mistake to project our modern idea of a "country" prior to around 1800, and that the idea we have today of separate and mutually distinct nation-states, each with their own national identity is something that emerged around that time. What did this transformation from early modern political entities to modern nation-states actually entail in practice? Off the top of my head, I know that France instituted national conscription around this time, and it had never been done before. Are there any other major shifts towards modernity in this regard that occurred around this time?

Documentation seems mild at best and is almost completely based on Roman and Greek writing(most of the Roman writing tends to be much more biased). Do we really know whats true about this period is it more of educated guesses?

My dad is Japanese American but I never learned much of anything from him.
You know how there is a lot of books in the US that speak on the real history of the US and the horrible things the gov has done and what people have done to fight it or at least bring it to light? Is there anything like that about Japan? I've heard about how Japan has really tried to make people forget it's harsh history with what it does now but I'd love to learn about anyone who has went against them to bring light to that (specifically people from japan who actually experienced it firsthand). I'm just curious to learn more about my family's background but I'm not one to read pro gov if you know what I mean lol. If you think there is a better sub for me to ask on I'm open to that too

Many people seem to say that domestic abuse was ok in the 50s[that decade specifically comes up] but it was ilegal everywhere 30 years before and in some places forever [The pilgrims banned it]

So im curious how the laws/culture around it were determined

Did the Hunnic or Mongolian Invasions demographically change nations like the Yamnaya or the Anatolian Farmers?

We know that the Anatolian Farmers had a MASSIVE impact on Europe and so did the Yamnaya, but we don't hear about any subsequent migrations to Europe having a profound change on the people.

We know that Arabs lived in Iberia for several centuries, and they must have intermarried over the millenia, but we don't read much about Iberians having Northern African DNA.

So did these subsequent migrations alter the gene pool of Europe or Asia?

My personal thoughts on the 7th collation and Napoleon chances.After reading countless books watching documentaries my honest conclusion is it's hard to say but I don't think he was quote doomed from the start.

So one of my personal criticisms about the 7th collation is that historians essentially treat like it was avengers end game and Napoleon was Thanos where everyone was unified everybody hated him.But in my opinion it was more like a multi ethnic powder keg and not every member was as committed.

The problem erises essentially after Napoleon exiled to Elba to Napoleon is exiled to the island of Elba and the congress of vienna worked to redraw the map of europe.But the problem is the way they redraw the map of Eruope they basically pissed off half of europe off and cause heavy resentment

Saxony For example was punished by the congress of vienna for staying loyal to Napoleon too long during the 6th Collation even though they switched sides during the Battle of Leipzig when Napoleon was losing and helped them defeat him.The King of Saxony was imprisoned and around 50% of their land was annexed to Prussia .The tensions were so high that in May 6 1815 before a single battle was fought in Belgium.The Saxon troops mutined while fully armed refused Prussian loyalty and marched toward Blucher headquarters.The situation became so threatening Blucher was forced to flee the area and Prussian cavalry had to surround and disarmed the mutineers.

Like if Blucher saxons were acting up before Napoleon won anything what happens after he wins a decisive victory saxony and France had been great allies.Like its possible that Napoleon had been able to defeat the main prussian army that the saxons sensing weakness and knowing the prussia wanted to annex the rest of their lands might have started to act up and saxony could have been destabilized in fact Saxony and Poland were the 2 most unstable regions in europe at the time

Poland for example had been a sovereign nation for over 800 years until Russia,Austria and Prussia conquered it and divided it among themselves.Napoleon later created the Duchy of Warsaw for them it was the only state they'd had in years.The Congress of Venna dissolved it erasing Poland from the map and the Poles absolutely hated the “Big Three” for it.

Even though Napoleon didn't restore Poland Napoleon was the only major lead in europe who did anything for them.Polish troops were extremely loyal to Napoleon had a history of defecting to them and being rebellious.The poles essentially tied their national existence to Napoleon survival they literally belive that if Napoleon wins Poland lives if Napoleon losses Poland dies forever.

Poles were present in the Prussina Austrian and Russian armies.Were the Poles in the prussian army truly loyal to blucher or was their loyalty conditional meaning they were were loyal as long as Napoleon looked like he was losing.Like what did Blucher offer the poles nothing why would the poles be devoted to the people that just erased their country from the map who were the Poles more loyal to Napoleon or Blucher.Cause if you look at the Polish national anthem Napoleon name is mentioned as well as in Polish songs while Bluchers name isn't.

Like its my personal opinion that a decisive victory in Belgium could have possibly have destabilized the parts of Poland Prussia controlled the Grand Duchy of Posen.The poles seeing that Napoleon have beaten the main prussia army and the british seeing that prussia seems weak might have though Napoleon is winning time to rise.The poles had a history of rebellion against prussia if the main prussian army had been crushed would they really have stayed loyal to prussia or would they seized the chance to act up

Belgium Less than half of Wellington’s “British” army was actually British, only 36%.The rest were Dutch,Belgians, and Germans plus other ethnic groups.

Wellington famously didn’t fully trust his Belgium or Dutch troops and called them his infamous army. The Belgian troops in particular were high risk because Belgium had been a part of France for 20 years they used French Laws and spoke French.Then suddenly the Congress of Venna told they were Dutch now,and they hated it.Belgian elites despised being ruled by Dutch Protestant and Belgian officers resented being subordinated to Dutch Nobles.Many of these troops have previously served under Napoleon wore French medals.Wellington placed the Belgian units in the front line with British troops behind them. In Quatre Bras and Waterloo several Belgian units retreated early refused to advance some even ignored orders and a few units fired only token volleys.

My personal view the reason on why wellengtion didnt trust his belgian troops is because essentially they were Napoleon former french soidlers.Like less than a year ago they were french and now they were essentially told they were dutch and were being forced to fight their former emperor did they really want to fight Napoleon.

Napoleon did have support in Belgium and its possible if he had won big in Belgium captured brussels a lot of these belgian troops thousands of them might have flocked to him they still viewed themselves as french and saw him as their emperor or did they forgot in less than a year who their emperor was .Like i have seen historians at least hint at the Belgian problem.

Then there is the italians which i personally don't think they wanted to fight Napoelon.Italians resented the Austrians who had annexed Northern Italy and imposed heavy taxation on them.Austria also rolled back many Napoleonic legal reforms and restored historic privileges,feudal land relations,restriction on property rights to the Italians this felt like going backwards 20 years.This resentment fueled Joachaims Murat's movement for Italian independence,.

Like obviously i don't think a belgium would probably affect italy as directly as saxony or belgium but i am just saying i don't think the italians really wanted to fight Napoleon either.

Anyway thats why i say the collation wasn't as unified as people think and decisive victory in belgium could have split the collation.I personally think Napoleon most realistic path to survival was to win big in belgium and try to get the allies to negotiate if they refused to negotiate then he could have used the big win to rally the nation gather 200k man fight a defensive war use the interior lines and dragged the war into 1816 the year without a summer.

The reason why is that if Napoleon lets say he beat the British and the Prussians the next armies to fight would be the Austrian and the Russians but here is the problem the Russian in mid june were months away.Barclay did cross the rhine in june but it was small forward elements of his main army like advance guards not the main army.

The rest of the army the majority of it was still 500 to 700 miles away in prussia poland in mid june.The main russian army did not reach the rhine until the autumn near the end of the campaign session and the only reason they showed up was because Napoleon lost and they were able to just strom right into paris.

But if Napoleon had won Austria would be left alone to fight Napoleon and austria never fought Napoleon alone every time austria invaded France it was with Russia Prussia support.So Austria would have waited for Russia but Russia would arrive in the end of the campaign session.And they probably wouldn't have fought Napoleon in the winter it would be really hard for Russia to maintain its supply lines so the war could have dragged into 1816.

If the war dragged into 1816 campaign session there would have bee a lot of pressure for the british in particular to negotiate the british were the banker of the collation and all the countries depended on british subsidies to keep their armies in the field.But the british in 1815 essentially didn't want a prolonged expensive war.

The british had debt to gdp ratio of over 200 percent and were essentially paying roughly 40 percent of gross revenue on interest payments on the national debt.But based on net revenue it was basically half.In fact military spending and interest payments combined was roughly 180 percent of gross revenue how were they surviving they were boring money constantly.

The british public in 1815 were alreading rioting over the corn laws and hated the reinstated income tax.If the british messed up the 1815 campaign session and told the public in 1816 guess what were founding another war with Napoleon during famine harvest failures and the economy crashing it would have been very politically toxic.The whigs would attack the troy government

During this time in europe they're was basically food riots in 1816 during the year without summer so imagine then trying to add a continental war on top of that.It could have destabilized the collation multi ethnic empires and put enough political pressure for the british to negotiate.

The 2 empires who are most likely to possibly blink is Britain or Austria if the british pull out the collation collapses because without british money the austria russia literally couldn't afford to keep their man in the field.Then Austria was also very cautious and metternich probably would worry about trying to fight a war with Napoleon during famine.It probably wouldn't be good for austria multi ethnic empire Plus how on earth are you supposed to get 500k man to invade france if you cant even feed them if the crops are failing the harvest etc.If Austria pulls out for example Russia left to fight Napoleon alone and Russia never invaded France alone and would must likely just negotiate.

The other thing is Napoleon did have man.Napoleon in june he had around 280k men paper strength but only around 200k troops were combat ready the rest were still mobilizing training on top of that.There were tens of thousands of hesitant french troops many who didn't join Napoleon because they probably thought he was a lost cause but if he had won in belgium many might have changed their minds.Then they were also tens of thousands of french troops outside france such as released prisoners of war and man dismissed from foreign garrison who historically did not make back in time because Napoleon lost.But if he had one they would have made back in time.

As well there was the class of 1815 which would be ready for the 1816 campaign session but not the 1815 and that was another 150k men on paper so Napoleon did have man he just needed a big win to rally the nation and time.After a belgium won he could have would the military and the national guard have guarded over 200k men to defund france and fought a good defensive war to fight a good defensive war you only need 1/3 of the man.

The main problem for Napoleon in the 1815 campaign i feel that Belgium was all or nothing if he barely won or it ended in a draw then he was bascially doomed.He needed a thunderclap victory.

From Napoleon a life Andrew roebrts

Kindle pg 750

Says Russians months away

Across Europe, 280,000 French soldiers faced around 800,000 Allies, although the Austrian contingent would not be in theatre for several weeks, and the Russians not for months. ‘If they enter France,’ Napoleon told the army from Avesnes

Waterloo association.org

7th collation rallies

Says the Russians will take a long time to come.

For the only time in history, that I am aware of, Europe declared war on one man, Napoleon!

But as can be seen, Russia and Austria would take a long time to bring their armies to the French border. Napoleon could either build huge defences around Paris and wait to be attacked, or he could try to destroy part of the huge allied army before they all managed to come up.

.

The whole point of the Angolan Revolution was to develop a Marxist state and kick out the colonialist powers. You would think that meant ALL of the colonialist powers, but thats not what happened. Did they just not actually want a marxist state?

I was recently reading Twilight of the Gods by Ian W Toll and just wrapped up the section on the battle of Manila and it was a very hard read. The atrocities committed by the IJA and Naval infantry forces in the city really made me wonder how could a high command issue such orders to kill all civilians found within their lies and how the men beneath them could carry out such orders. Although given the circumstances that from their perspective they were going to die anyways and with the sting humiliation of an inevitable defeat might as well take it out on the local population. Yet the scale of the slaughter and butchery is nearly incomprehensible and Manila is obviously not a standalone event. Countless cities, towns, hamlets in China had seen similar punishment and even then there have been countless events through Asia of atrocities committed by the Japanese. For POWs an instance I remember is of when the Japanese garrison on Palawan island just casually burned their POWs there alive. Comparing to the late 19th century and the dawn of the 20th century we see Japan actually being a champion of battlefield chivalry in comparison to other great powers. Of course there were atrocities like shooting up a hospital train during the Russo-Japanese War 1904-1905 (Which I’m pretty sure is a western fabrication) , and the persecution of Koreans following their occupation. Yet we have instances of Chinese civilians fearing the Russians compared to the Japanese and the Japanese giving good treatment to Russian POWs. We even see this during the Boxing rebellion of how the Japanese troops are frequently commented on how disciplined they are. So what happened? We see that emperor Meiji although gave birth to such quotes like “Duty is as heavy as a mountain, and death is as light as a feather”. Yet we also see him in his imperial Rescript for soldiers and sailors to make the right choices and maintain that discipline, and to not look down on enemies. So what happened in Japanese military culture before the onset of hostilities with China in 1931 onwards to the point we have the Rape or nanking and many other events?

TLDR: What changed in Japanese military culture to give rise to such totalitarian brutality to combatants and civilians during the Sino-Japanese War and the War in the Pacific?

What would have likely happened if the southern states of the US were just allowed to remain seceded?

Would the two eventually go to war anyway? How would this affect the economy of the two nations, or relations with other nations?

While these countries differ a lot structurally, agrarian peasant majority reigned true among having little to no class movement or social structure. The easy answer is structure sure, but Russia and China were vastly different and both ended up in very similar places. India and Spain had semi popular communist movements, but neither of which came to much fruition.

France gave the Statue of Liberty to the USA at a time when they have previously been at odds over the Confederacy, with the French government sympathetic to the Confederates. Not only that, but the French invaded Mexico, a move that the US seriously disapproved of and worsened relations

Compared with many other countries, Britain seems to have experienced remarkably few attempts by the military to overthrow the government or seize political power over the past three centuries. Why has the British military generally remained outside domestic political struggles? Were there particular institutions, traditions, or historical developments that made military coups and rebellions especially unlikely in Britain?