The French Revolution kinda looked like a sinusoidal wave if you ask me

For background, I was thinking today about how if I saw an open business niche locally, to open a business I would have to convince one or more banks, a buddy's rich uncle, etc to provide the capital to do so. So there's actually several potential 'bodies' I can convince to support the scheme.

And that got me thinking about whether the Soviet Union had, in the first place, any ability for the average person to try and start a new enterprise(? I'm not sure of the word here, since it wouldn't be a private business) and whether you could send your appeal to multiple 'bodies' or whether only one (or zero) bodies had say in the matter.

Was he senteced to prison, lived a normal life, commited suicide or something like that ?

Hi, I recently had a debate with a French girl, she was saying that “nobody could prove if Canada was useful and good in WW2, because Canada was with the American army. And In Overall, Canada wasn’t great”. But I’m sure their some prove of it. I’d love to see some good examples/story that could prove her wrong.

I have been watching Vikings and noticed this in one of the recent episodes. I believe that Ragnar Lothbrok, who is the main character of the show and a Viking leader, was shown in his field tent with a rat in one hand and a python in the other. Separately, the character of Queen Kwenthrith of the English Kingdom of Mercia is shown, presumably in her palace/castle, in a room with cages holding monkeys and parrots, and maybe other animals too. It is worth noting that the Queen is portrayed as an off-the-rails type character, you know, the type where you're like "of course she's got monkeys". Additionally, when the Viking leader is shown with the rat and python (the snake looked like a ball python or a snake that otherwise came from very very far away), it seemed as if there was possibly some religious connotation or that it was associated with preparing for an upcoming battle. Generally, the Vikings are portrayed on the show as having pagan rituals that seem to heavily involve animals and animal sacrifice (note I have little to no historical knowledge regarding the shows accuracy).

So what is the context for these royal figures having these kinds of animals, is this purely added entertainment value, was this a general practice, or were these specific animals actually owned/'used' historically? I'm interested in the case of these early Viking, English, and Frankish kingdoms that are depicted on the show (I think in the period of 800-1000 CE) , but if anyone has some specialized knowledge in the history of exotic animals at royal courts I'd be curious to hear about the practice from any time or place. If real, was this mostly done in the way any other thing of value would be collected, to simply display court wealth and prestige? Or did some animals have religious or political connotations and other attached significances?

I could have sworn I remembered hearing something two states that almost went to war against each other under the Articles of Confederation. Could not find anything else about it on the interwebs though and wanted to double check.

I realise that non socialist aligned countries have/had Five-year plans, such as Argentina, Bhutan and South Korea. However, these plans are most well known for their usage in the USSR and (People's Republic of) China, which has had its 14th 5YP a few days ago. Why is this the case? Seems to me that many countries which have elections every 4,5-5 years would benefit from 5YP as a geopolitical and macroeconomic roadmap.

It's my understanding that early civilizations were limited to using copper and the alloy bronze due to their inability to produce enough heat to melt iron. Once they were able to do this, the iron age started, since iron was easier to acquire than bronze, and a long time after that steel became commonly used, being superior to iron.

What are the factors that go into kilns and furnaces that prevented early peoples from working with iron and steel? What technological or design advancements were made that allowed people to heat metals to higher temperatures? Why couldn't a bronze-age civilization make a furnace hot enough to smelt iron and forge it into steel?

Why did the economy remain mostly agrarian and not modernize with manufacturing?

Hey guys - Does anyone have any recommendations on books (or shows/movies?) that cover the rise of different kinds of food through the course of humanity? Namely, how humans began exploring foods / experimenting with different ingredients / etc. A good example might be Salt by Mark Kurlansky and, to some extent, Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond. Any others come to mind?

In historic 'pitched battles' from the Victorian/American Civil War era, but also before, the first day came to an end and both armies were still in the field when night came, like Gettysburg. But what actually happened at night? Did armies historically lay down in formation and rest in the field? Or did they retire to an established camp, with the rows and rows of tents?

If they retired to an encampment then they'd be exposed to loosing whatever ground they had fought on during the day, but I can't imagine sleeping in the grass at night could go well, especially in times when night was well below freezing. Are there any primary, or even secondary, sources that describe night-time in any detail?

​

Thank you in advance

Postmodernism has certain axioms that look at things such as the role of power as well as a perspective that places a large emphasis on the role of social constructionism. What role do assumptions such as social constructionism, deconstruction and the analysis of power dynamics play in the way in which historians conduct their research. And how is postmodernism and its assumptions viewed by trained historians in the field?

Recently public opinion Thomas Jefferson has crashed because of his “long term sexual relationship” with Sally Hemings; a slave and minor. The question: is this very different than most historical marriages where women/girls were basically sold as wives to husbands? Sally couldn’t consent because of her age and TJ’s power over her but is that any worse than how most wives couldn’t choose their own husbands and were potentially Sally’s age as well?

Edit: follow up question: and if those other marriages ARE considered r*pe and are just as awful, why are we giving Thomas Jefferson such a public dressing down if he’s no worse than anyone else living at that time?