It seems so, so, so strange that a nobleman of high standing wouldn't want to take part into ruling an empire only if he had been elected into it. So what happened then?

All the FAQ answers I found emphasized that before the Industrial Revolution, you wouldn't get paid by the hour, you wouldn't have to meet at "7:00 sharp," you would just get up at dawn with the rest of your family. And not having artificial light, you'd go to bed early and wake up naturally.

Cool. But presumably there were people who needed to wake up before dawn, and at a time their bodies weren't used to. Soldiers who want to march at first light. Travelers who want to take a ship that leaves at dawn or get on the road as early as possible. A nobleman who normally wakes up at dawn but today is going hunting and wants everything ready by dawn. Monks who would wake up in the middle of the night to pray. Muezzins who needed to call people to prayer at dawn.

So how would they do it? Was it all dependent on having a friend or servant (or two or three) who would stay up and take turns waking each other up? (Along with an hour glass to know when each shift ended?)

Like many others, I've really enjoyed exploring the work of a number of famous cultural figure from late 19th century Russia (e.g. Tolstoy and Tchaikovsky have always been favorites of mine, pretty typical stuff), and I'd love to have a better understanding of the context they lived/worked in. To get a bit more specific about what sort of book I'm looking for...

1. Introductory. What I know from Russian history is basically what I've looked up so far to better understand the books written in that period (and I'm definitely a casual reader). And I'm open to whatever the best option is, but I do have lots to read and I'd prefer it be on the "introductory" rather than "comprehensive" side of length (but I know it's hard to strike that balance, so I'd consider anything).

2. Relevant to the world of those "famous cultural figures". This is obviously vague, I just mean that a book that is strictly about the life of the peasants, or the very highest levels of politics, would probably not be as useful as one that had a broader scope (although both parts are obviously relevant!). I've seen some recommendations that are strictly about the build-up to the 1917 revolution, and while I'm sure those topics are relevant, I was hoping for something a bit more expansive.

Any suggestions for where to start? Love reading all the content here.

I remember watching videos on the Roman Empire as well as their history. One thing I heard is that they have slaves. But I was wondering, what caused someone to be a slave in Roman republic / empire? (Unless either the republic or empire doesn’t have slaves.) Any ideas on how that happens? From what I understand slavery was a lot different in Rome than in the United States. Correct me if I’m wrong about that.

When I studied this part of history in high school the attention was put more on the Hollywood actors, playwrights or scientists who were accused of Communist, but rarely Russians living in the United States at the time. Were they primarily anti-communist at the time, which saved them from the attention of McCarthyism et al, or was it something else?

My familiarity with the party and Wirt doesn't extend past skimming Wikipedia so maybe my question is fallacious! Was the Anti Masonic party actually far less of a single issue party than the name would imply? Or otherwise what led to the seemingly strange situation?

I’m a university student and aspiring historian and I think about this very often. An example being Donald Trump’s Twitter. That is going to be a very important primary source in the future when studying his presidency, but how would you determine which tweets are valuable? Or are all of them worth researching/noting? While the “information age” is great, is it going to possibly cause too much information for historians in the future?

I heard recently that if the missippi bubble hadn't happrned the events leading up the the French revolution might not have happened as frances entire economy was ruined by it and louis the 13th and 14th printed a lot of money to try and recover. What is the missippi bubble and is this theory in any way plausible?

Specifically talking about the time around 1450

Most sources I found say that they were, but with all their freedoms it seems weird to me. I also read somewhere that the Herrschaft/ Lordship of Jever only joined the Empire in 1548, which implies that it previously wasn't part of it.

Can someone please clear the up a bit for me?

Why is/was the IRA Marxist in ideology and how has that changed over time? What was the reason for affiliation with the Palestine Liberation Organization? Did they work with Black September? Did this relationship change after the Sabra and Shatila massacre?

Thanks!

Did Greek and Roman historians know about the fallen powers of the Bronze Age like the Hittites and Mitanni or was their memory lost until the modern age?

I actually have no idea how the general populous reacted to it. I imagine that most likely a large proportion would’ve supported/accepted it since the Island hopping campaign was so brutal and the Japanese’s unending tenacity would’ve likely meant we would’ve had to fight most of not all the way through mainland japan so most people wanted the war to just end. But I can imagine that a lot of people would be very upset at the massive loss of civilian life?

Wouldn't it make more sense to be in the Eastern Bloc like the rest of the balkan countries? How did they end up with the capitalist/NATO side?

I have done some research and I can't seem to find any instances of New Zealand's border changing. I just want to find out for sure.

What was the popular stance in Nazi Germany? I don't think everyone had such deep antisemitism that they would want to kill them.

Did it actually lead him to do the things he did, or would it have happened regardless? how much of an impact did it actually have on him?

The impression I get of Chiang Kai-Shek is that he was a highly ambitious man who was not quite able to simultaneously consolidate Warlord power, defeat the communists, focus on the Japanese, and win broad civilian support for the Kuomintang.

In simple terms I don’t know if his failings were his own or simply impossible given the circumstances.

Is there historical evidence that Chiang had simply made blunders, or was he just in an impossible situation given his ambitions?

Hi, I'm a fan of Mike Duncan's History of Rome and Revolutions podcast. I am curious if members of this subreddit have recommendations for other information dense but narrative driven history podcasts: I am especially interested in pods that cover very non-contemporaneous subject matters, in either the early modern, medieval, or late antique periods. Thanks much : ) Hope this is an appropriate post for the sub.

A friend of mine thinks that the land we currently live on was not stolen. He argues that native "never claimed it"

I think it's bs, but he won't budge. What do historians think?

I was watching a documentary about the barbaric tribes from ancient Rome. They were discussing how the Huns would alter the shape of their skulls with leather straps. Do we know how this affect their brain development?