Pretty basic question, I know, but I’m looking for a 100-200 (this isn’t a hard limit) that discusses the historical fact of Weimar Germany.

The reason for this ask is because I want to understand the conditions that led to the rise of Hitler and why the citizenry would support the Nazi party. In my opinion an important aspect of opposing Nazi-similar movements is to understand what led to the original Nazi movement in a historical context.

Been listening to and relistening to Mike Duncan’s “The History of Rome”. One thing that seems agreed upon in the literature is that one of the main reasons the West fell is because the super-rich landowning classes withheld money, manpower, and political support from the army more and more throughout the 5th century. One of the main reasons for this as far as I can tell is that the senatorial class — which to my mind is basically synonymous with “wealthy landowning elites” — were barred from serving in senior positions in the military from the reign of Gallienus on. This seems like it completely divorced the elites from the needs and realities of the military over time, leading, in part, to the complete degradation of the West’s military.

I understand this question is kind of predicated on that causal inference being correct — but why was this division kept (If it was indeed kept until at least the fall of the West)? Romans always seemed so concerned about becoming effete and detached from their martial traditions so why wasn’t this reversed

Thank you!

I might be wrong on this, but this is my opinion on the "disease" reason:

If the Aztecs and Incas were conquered because of disease, how were the Aztecs and Incas still able to send so many reinforcements? The Aztecs and Incas always had more than enough soldiers available, even when disease was rampant. During the siege of Tenotitlian, for example, the Spanish and their allies were severely outnumbered, yet the city fell to them.

I know London had gas streetlights as early at 1816, though it took until the 1860s for them to become common inside homes. I'm curious about the infrastructure.

Would gaslights would normally be fed from some central location in a city, or by individual gas canisters within a building? And how did it work for homes away from population centers? If you had a remote manor like Downton Abbey, would someone have dug a long gas line out from a natural gas plant, or did the building have a room full of flammable gases in canisters, and if so, where?

I am excluding volunteers who were sent by their government, such as the troops sent by Nazi Germany and Italy. I wish to learn more about those who came of their own free will because they supported the ideals of either side. How were they organized? Did they just show up to Spain and ask to enlist? And why did the Spanish civil war attract so many foreign volunteers in the first place?

Hoping this is the appropriate sub to ask, as I can’t seem to find a more relevant one. I’ve always wondered why we look so different as compared to artistic depictions of humans from ~1500 AD (Lucas Cranach the Elder comes to mind) and before, and if it was perhaps because we actually differ physically (height, stature, etc.) or if artists intended to depict humans in a certain way. I understand there was a higher prevalence of incest, as well as large disparities between classes (nobility and biblical figures were more likely to be used as subjects), but is there any academia as it pertains to history? Thanks in advance for any help!

In English, the two names are identical but I have no reason to believe that they were related in any way. Any help on the matter as this has been bothering me for a while now. Thank you!

Is it caused bt physical geography or is there a cultural reason?

Oddly specific question but I am curious if there are any historical precedents for this kind of event.

Would they wait for the child to be born? Is the child completely left out of succession when he is born?

Also assuming the monarch has no children aside from the unborn child.

Everyone knows that Italian food is based on a handful of main ingredients including tomatos but considering they weren't introduced to Italy until the mid 16th century what could have been the alternative and how vastly different was Italian food pre-introduction from today's perspective it seems like atleast every popular Italian dish contains them?

I've been reading through the journal of Nicholas Cresswell, 1774-1776. Early on in his arrival he became ill with "flux"(diarrhea as I understand it) and his doctor gave him the wrong medicine which exacerbated his condition. What medicines would they normally use for flux? He was given a "mercurial" medicine by accident and I'm generally aware of the story that the Lewis and Clark expedition can be tracked by their stomach ailment cure of mercury. As far as I'm aware it flushes the system out and further causes dehydration. He later speaks for several months of taking "salts" and having a bad taste in his mouth all day. I tried googling medical salts and salt remedy and historical salts. I'm not sure what my key words should be here. I'd like to know what was the actual medicine he was taking in current medical or chemical terms.

Like title.They already had provinces in North Africa. They indeed had the possibility. What did prevent them to explore and conquer the rest of Africa?

Were states like France, Great Britain, The Ottoman Empire, and so on concerned about the large territorial gains of the their neighbors? Were they apathetic?

I have done some reading about the battle of Narvik. What I can't seem to understand is how important this town was for both sides. I get that Germany was interested due to its connection to the Swedish iron mines and that Britan did not want Germany to have this iron. But I can't seem to find how dependant Germany was on the Swedish iron that was coming through Narvik.

My question is: How important was Narvik as a strategic location for both Germany and Britain?

​

I would love if you have some recommendations for books or texts about this subject.

In California, I’ve learned that Robert E Lee disliked both slavery and secession but still became a general in the confederate army due to his loyalty and his duty towards the state of California. However someone is claiming that Lee actively supported both slavery and secession. Most articles and teachers seem to support me, but this is the final nail in the coffin.

I read about how the meat of indigenous people was sold in Qing-era markets in Taiwan, and how the settlers even believed that the body parts of indigenous people had medicinal properties. But I've never heard of cannibalism practiced on "mainland" China, except as a tragic and desperate survival strategy during severe famines. The government officials and other literate-class members who wrote about the practice seem fairly horrified or at least disapproving, so do we know what brought the settlers to do this? Did they view the indigenous people as less than human somehow? And did Han settlers in southwestern China also treat the indigenous populations there in the same way?

Curious about the intentions here. Wouldn't they have carried more weight coming from important figures like Madison and Hamilton? Or was the thought that since they were part of the Constitutional Convention, they were biased? If it's the latter, wouldn't the anonymity be a bit unethical and serve to trick the public, like an early form of astroturfing?

Edit: Was he just a xenophobe?

I'm from Latin America, from Uruguay most specifically, i noticed that Argentina, Uruguay and Chile don't consume as much rice as the rest of the region, but still the consumption is significant, i know that rice is very common in countries like Brazil, Peru, Colombia and most countries in Central America. Seems like all social classes eat it since it's pretty cheap and efficient.

The question is why? how did this grain that is native to Asia ended up as one of the most consumed grains in Latin America?

I'm particularly interested in the very early Bronze Age.