I've seen a lot of 'crown princes' in my research, and while it's usually the eldest son it's not always. I'm just wondering how a 'crown prince' or heir apparent was chosen in Ancient China.

I understand they invaded to remove the neighbouring threats that the armies of hungary, polands and smaller/other powers posed for their plans in russia. I also read they had other war fronts in china.

Did they have any intention of long term hold and presence in europe (going as far as the british isles)?

Or did they simply want to destroy any possibility of a coalition against them, and picked up a few vassals and subjugations on the way to create a sort of buffer zone between europe and russia while they continued their ambitions there?

I did checked the rules and this might be a bit loaded. And it may just be some religious rivalry, but how did it start?

"The first of the kind, the Royal Navy's Dreadnought, had such an impact when launched in 1906 that similar battleships built after her were referred to as "dreadnoughts," and earlier battleships became known as pre-dreadnoughts."

Yet, if one reads records of naval battles involving "dreadnought-level" ships, they would almost always be referred to as battleships. Even the description of Battle of Jutland reads:

It was the largest naval battle and the only full-scale clash of battleships in that war.

The term dreadnought being scarcely used (or stated as dreadnought battleships when just dreadnought would suffice), and in writings of WW2, it is pretty much non existent. Was the term just outdated, or is my understanding of the use of the term flawed? Wouldn't it be much simpler to just say dreadnoughts? If it is so scarcely used, I don't get the description of the term either, with "similar battleships came to be known as dreadnoughts", when it wasn't that widely used..

I've read Pliny's Letters and was fascinated with all the small stuff that would consist everyday life at that age. Like how he talked about his job, described the layout of his house, thanked his friend for sending him dates, shared local rumors, described his off-duty activities...

What are some other sources where I can read / listen more about something like that? I tried reading Caesar's Gallic Wars and Xenophon's Anabasis, but they wrote about more epic things, and weren't concerned with describing "boring", everyday fine details that I'm curious about.

So, I have been searching all night for this guy, but I remember him from my American History test in college. I can't remember him for the life of me, though.

Basically, from what I remember, he lost an election and immediately went West to start a new nation to then turn around and attack the then burgeoning USA. I remember it by the name of something like "Xxxx's Rebellion" or something.

Am I hallucinating or misremembering something? Maybe I'm combining facts about the whole Hamilton 1800 election. If not, though, I'd love to refresh my memory.

Hello, I have been dwelling into history lately and one thought which kept coming to my mind was why hasn’t microhistory been relevant in the writing of a historical book based on primary source. I have tried finding it out, unfortunately, I am not able to understand the underlying problem or any drawback which stops a historian from incorporating microhistory. I would be glad if someone could help me out to understand the difference. Thanks

I know that a new constitution was created, By the soviets is 1917 and by the Republic in 1993, however, where there any legal documents retained in their functionally? Or where they simply declared defunct? I'm talking civil laws like the explicit rights of an individual.

​

Thanks.

There's the JFK quote: "It's not a very nice solution, but a wall is a hell of a lot better than a war," but I don't understand how the wall affected the potential for a war. Was it as simple as Khrushchev was concerned about West Germany so the Wall kept out West Germany (through Berlin) and therefore avoided a war with West Berlin and by extension the US? A wall does very little to stop bombers so in the era of nuclear weapons how does a wall prevent war?

Did people use the term black people, or were they not referred to as such because they weren't seen as people? Did people just say blacks, negroes, or the obvious 3rd option? Or were there other terms?

Chief Justice Fred Vinson, appointed by Harry Truman, was Secretary of the Treasury before his appointment. Hugo Black, appointed to the court by FDR and a key ally of the New Deal, was the senator from Alabama. And Chief Justice Earl Warren, appointed by Eisenhower, was the governor of California.

But at least in recent memory, all nominees to the Supreme Court have come directly from judicial postings and (I believe) from federal judgeships. Was the nomination of non-judges to the Supreme Court a brief moment in US history, or is the norm of appointing SCOTUS justices from strictly judicial backgrounds a relatively recent one? If so, why? How were SCOTUS nominees from non judicial backgrounds received in their time?

Please feel free to remove this if it conflicts with rule 2, I was not quite sure and in case it did not, I thought the help of this community would be invaluable.

TL;DR: I need recommendations for books, articles, videos, etc (preferably sourced) about conservatism and myths.

Longer explanation:

I'm a bachelor student of history at the University of Copenhagen, and I've just started my fifth semester, which is the semester where I have to do my bachelor project. I've picked "the American conservative tradition" as my area of study, and I want to write about the creation and cultivation of myths in American conservatism as a response to the idea of humanity being, at its core, selfish and destructive.

Specifically, I was inspired by this particular line, quoted from Conservatism in America since 1930 and written by Russell Kirk, who himself is quoting Paul Elmer:

"As a negative impulse, conservatism is based on a certain distrust of human nature, believing that the immediate impulses of the heart and visions of the brain are likely to be misleading guides. [...] But this distrust of human nature is closely connected with another and more positive factor of conservatism - its trust in the controlling power of the imagination."

In essence I'm trying to write a historiographical overview of American conservatism, and especially how it has changed in more recent years, with a focus on this controlling power of the imagination. I will likely be dealing with subjects such as the American Dream, American Exceptionalism, and the idea of the American frontier.

I'm using the following books currently:

Conservatism in America since 1930 (edited by Gregory L. Schneider). New York University Press. 2003.

The American Dream (Jim Cullen). Oxford University Press. 2003.

Regeneration through Violence: the Mythology of the American Frontier 1600-1860 (Richard Slotkin). University of Oklahoma Press. 1973.

Onwards Christian Soldiers? The Religious Right in American Politics (Clyde Wilcox and Carin Robinson). Westview Press. 2011.

The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America since 1945 (George H. Nash). ISI Books. 1976.

It seems to be one rule for one, one rule for another. Kaiser Wilhelm ll was also quite close with Eulenburg, who was accused of having a gay sex ring. To what extent is homosexuality so repressed in elite historical circles?

Edit: Ernst Röhm was the leader of the SA, NOT the SS.

Hello everyone,

Okay, I am mostly following r/europe and recently there was a lot of threads about Bulgaria. And then I got interested about their history.

So I know that Bulgars were Turkic tribe, that came to Europe, they had two Empires during history.

And population in that area was mostly Slavic, they got assimilated, started speaking Slavic language, but kept their name.

So my question is are there any traces about that Slavic people before they became Bulgars, some written history when they came there, did they have some leaders, some specific name.

There is written history about Croats and Serbs from that time, so probably there was some other Slavic tribes there also? Did someone wrote about them? Or they didnt have any identity before Bulgars..

Thanks in advance

It seems that, across history, all the religions that prosper in China are non-theistic: Confucianism, taoism and buddhism, with only a few but notable exceptions like the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom

This seems weird to me because, as far as I know in the rest of the world theistic religions are the norm, even Japan which was super influenced by China developed Shintoism which is light on the "deity you must worship" but still has clear deities you are encouraged to worship

I know there are some clear deities people in China have worshiped, like the Heavenly Emperor or the Three Pure Ones but from what I've read they were never worshipped as universally or with the same devotion or reverence that gods in other religions have been worshipped. Worshiping them is just not very important

There's also the fact that while Buddhism developed in India it found a lot more success in China, probably precisely because it is a non-theistic religion

Why does this happen?, why does China seem to be THE place for non-theistic religions across history?

I understand the notion of tying a fleet up with the threat of one...but I'm imagining most of the German High Seas Fleet was not just trapped in a natural port nor do I imagine planes played a huge role of deterrence for naval operations. Was the area the German navy holed up simply too formidable to risk an attack?

I'm interested in different opinions on the causes of the Iranian Revolution that are primary or secondary sources, as I feel like I'm only seeing one side of the story. Thanks for the help.