I don’t know if this is the right sub. I am making a series of videos on the history of the Lakota Sioux, and I need some better sources for the history of them before the horses were introduced. More specifically, on where they were and what they were doing before they were in the Great Plains region. Thank you

While I am not a historian, I am aware that what we call "Feudalism" (manoralism?) only existed in certain time periods in certain countries during medieval times in Europe (someone please correct me if I'm mistaken). What I am more interested in is a comparison of the class structures in what is often called the Feudal periods in Europe and Japan. For example, did Japan also have serfdom and did the peasantry have more freedom in terms of labour mobility? Did Japan also have guilds, and if so, how monopolistic & monopsonistic were they? And finally, how similar were the samurai and knights?

Edit:grammar

Ever since WW2, Japan has had no official military due to its constitution prohibiting this. Given they were an empire with such an aggressive policy towards military expansion, this can't have been a simple transition. Shinzo Abe has failed to amend the constitution despite his best efforts, and it seems to be mostly down to internal resistance to the idea, which suggests that the change has taken root on a cultural basis, and was not just something agreed to at gunpoint.

How did the allies enforce this constitutional change, and why did public sentiment not revert back to its imperial tendencies once the heat was off from WW2?

Basically just the above. In the article I read about Abe's retirement it was noted that he is now the record holder for longest term in office. I saw this and assumed he would have served something like 20 years but when I looked into it, Japan seems to have rapid turn overs of power, with terms under 1 year unexceptional. What is the historical/cultural reason for this? I believe in most countries the incumbent has the advantage whereas this seems to be the opposite.

Thank you very much for your time, effort, and incredible dedication to public history.

Currently am reading up the feuds between french and english nobility during the 10th to 16th century, and am wondering how the English crown went from being heavily connected to the various French claimants, especially after the Battle of Hastings and subsequent conquest of England, to a chain of dynasties starting with the house of Hannover that came to dominate the royal bloodline. Sure there was the whole succession crisis with the death of William Adelin and the years of anarchy tha followed, along with the angevin possessions in France being lost, solidifying French control and the decline of the feudal chiefdom as the French acknowledged the superiority of the more centralized system of goverance, but I need some more context

I often hear it said that the USA joining the war was one of the largest factors that led to the wars ending, however during my reading of 1914-1918 by David Stevenson he seems to indicate that American forces were an ineffective fighting unit, mostly due to the fact the soldiers and officers were inexperienced in trench warfare and favoured frontal attacks that had been abandoned by the other Entente powers. Was the true impact of the USA joining more to do with provision of supplies or were they actually influential in battle?

Fort Sumter was located in South Carolina and not part of any northern states. Why was the public in the North so eager to support a war and northern volunteers joined the army in droves?

Like the title says, I’m not sure where to begin looking for primary sources around these topics from the late 19th and early to mid 20th centuries. I’m still refining my topic question but it is along the lines of, “what role did masculine forms of aggressive militarism play in controlling and exploiting women’s bodies during the period of modern European nationalization (1850-1950)?”

Particularly I am interested in masculine images of god in relation to militarism and gender within European nation states. In just beginning research I’m finding myself at a loss of where to begin looking for sources. Propaganda images, secondary sources on similar topics, any recommendations would be helpful. Thanks.

I'm from Greece and in our history the years of Ottoman rule are taught and seen as "400 years of slavery" and that we suffered a great deal under the Turkish yoke and so on. Is the same narrative being used in the Muslim countries that were part of the Ottoman empire, or is their years under it seen as something more benign?

I’m just here thinking about how the strategy in ww1 was to throw as many soldiers as you possibly could at the other sides trenches, that you would eventually defeat the defenses. Even if you lost 40,000 soldiers in the battle. Men would have to WALK across fields of barb wire, snipers, exploding shells, gas, flame throws. Craters then could fall In And die from the mud. My understanding of the civil war is there was tons of deserters, they would run away from the front line and ww1 was way worse. How did they motivate the troops to go make those death walks. Surely the first round all knew they were dead. We talk about how scared our soldiers were storming Normandy. I never hear anything about the soldiers and bravery in ww1.

Did they think it was holy ground? A message from Odin? Did they just accept it as a natural occurrence?

As a newly-minted American citizen, I'm trying to catch up with learning stuff that Americans learn in school but I didn't. I've been studying the civil war. It's easy to find information about troop movements, battles etc, but I haven't found a good explanation as to the reasons behind the war. The South was trying to secede because of the economic impact of freeing slaves. As much as I don't like it, I understand the South's position. What I don't understand is the other side. Why was it so important that the union be preserved? If the South wanted to secede and create its own country, what was the big deal? Why didn't President Lincoln send them on their merry way? An economic explanation doesn't make sense for the North, I don't think. I'm not trying to minimize the suffering and wrongness of slavery, but was the North's impetus for the war only the morality of slavery, or were there other reasons?

Thanks!

I find it very interesting that Alexander the Great, like Ghengis Khan, managed to conquer so much. I've also been reading up on the history of areas like Afghanistan and the surrounding areas. In the places that he conquered, is there anything there that remains today, be it a cultural aspect like a tradition, borrowed words used in the language, or archaeological sites?

I read a theory that Central Asians Turks invented all of these dishes.

-chapli kebab

-lebanese pickes

-iranian torshi pickles

-every Iranian and Turkish (from Turkey) rice preperation

-afghan rice

-lassi

-Nougat/torrone

-rice pudding

-Doner Kebab (crimean tatars and central asian turks)

-baklava (from central asian yufka)

-middle eastern clotted cream (geimar/ashta/sarshir)

-yogurt

-labneh

-pita

-lavash

-lahmacun

-baba ganouj

-dalut ki chaat

-indian naan

-afghan bread

-iranian nan taftan bread

-sambuska

-pashmak (middle eastern cotton candy)

-etli ekmek

-soulvaki

-adana kebab

-khachapuri

-kebab koobideh

-jojeh kebab

-kebab chelo

-barg kebab

-all koftas (and Swedish meatballs)

How come they were able to create such great foods in other lands but not back home? This is the foundation of many cuisines.

Also I read that French confiture de laities and creme fraiche are from SE Asia and Mongolia. Is this true?

I see a lot of people attacking BLM distinguish the protests happening now from the protests leading up to the American Revolution by saying the colonists didn’t loot, weren’t violent, and only destroyed government property/attacked British soldiers—including arguing that all the tea destroyed in the Boston Tea Party belonged exclusively to the British government. Is this the case?

This has always puzzled me. Such an important invention, yet such a simple concept. It baffles me that humans have lived for hundreds of thousands of years but we only started using the wheel less than ten thousand years ago? I admit that the wheel is a pretty ingenious concept, but surely Stone Age men saw fruits rolling on the ground, yet for hundreds of thousands of years, the wheel was not invented.