I don't understand why the geographical location of the capital is all that important, and even more so why it was important enough to make the national bank worth it. One was an earth shaking change in the scope of the power of the federal government. The other was... not. Why did the south care enough to make it worth it?

Did slaves dress differently from citizens or freedmen? Were they unkempt and dirty? Did they wear the same clothes as any other greek, or mostly wear rags?

Bonus points: Are there any records of citizens mistaking slaves for fellow citizens?

I’ve been thinking about this for a while. For places such as Canada and Australia, who became dominions of the British empire. The line between independence and being subject to Britain’s whim was already pretty blurry. They effectively have gotten their independence through a spectrum over the years. As for colonies in Africa, it’s my understanding that Britain merely allowed the nations to become independent without major fighting that would result in a British defeat, right? Was the US the only country to have done this? Was the American revolution a tad pointless due that it is likely “the US” would have become independent anyway?

I’m looking for a comprehensive work on the history of post-contact Canada, either in a single volume or multiple.

For context, I’m a university student with high school-level knowledge of Canadian history. I’d like to dive deeper into the topic (from tip to tail) but I’m not sure where I can find great resources. If this sub isn’t the best place to go, I would really appreciate some suggestions on where best to find sources.

Thank you in advance for your guidance!

Is there a definitive answer on how the modern Russian oligarchs came into power? I know under the USSR property and industries were controlled by the state, but what happened when the USSR collapsed? Did they buy the various industries and factories that existed, or did people just claim what ever they could get their hands on?

Okay, I realize this is a huge, vague question. Please allow me to elaborate.

I have been thinking about the Holocaust and have had trouble wrapping my head around the sheer brutality committed by ordinary people. I simply cannot fathom how a society collectively does such things and seemingly ordinary people cooperate all the way.

Not understanding this scares me, because it makes me ask "What's to stop something like this from happening here and now?"

So, my question(s) are thus: what are the specific factors that allowed the Holocaust to happen where and when it did (Germany in the 30's), and why did it not instead happen in a different place at a different time? Why not, for example, in France in the 1880's? Why not in America now?

Most importantly, what's to stop it from happening again?

I realize this is a huge question that may not anserable by a single Reddit comment, but I will appreciate any answers, information, or book recommendations on this subject.

I always see so many of our modern institutions come from long Standing histories, most of which were pretty oppressive in their day, and shady at best in modern times. Was there ever a large civilization that didn't thrive on oppressing their neighbors in one form or another?

What methodology is used to estimate the size of various resistance groups during the Second World War? I'm curious how specific numbers like "400,000 in the Polish Resistance," are reached, since the number of individuals involved in 'konspiracja' are significantly larger than the quoted 400,000, but the 400,000 number also seems rather large for armed resistors. What behaviors qualify an individual to be counted as a member of a resistance organization? Have there been any comparisons between the estimates of various national resistance organizations, and how the methodologies for counting these individuals differ from country to country?

I hope this is the right place to post this, I'm fairly new to reddit so not sure. I am writing about the time period and want to get my details as accurate as possible. I was wondering if there were any resources you could recommend to learn about WW2? I'm specifically interested in what life would have been like for a British soldier during this time. I know that many people were conscripted as soon as 1939 but I can't find any first hand accounts or details on what that process would have been like for someone living at the time.

In addition, following the evacuation of Dunkirk in 1940 it looks like Britain was largely immobile in any military action in Europe until D-day (although I may have that wrong.) What would have happened to those soldiers who may have been conscripted and evacuated at Dunkirk? Did they return home and return to civilian life until preparations for D-Day? I know there were military campaigns in North Africa, Greece, and further afield, but would those have been different divisions?

Basically, I want to understand the war from individual soldiers' perspectives rather than the British army as a whole. Sorry if these questions are dumb, any resources or info would be greatly appreciated!!

I'm currently in my second year of community college pursuing a history degree, but I'm still not certain whether I should pursue a history or archaeology degree (if I choose archaeology, I may have to extend another year of community college, much to my parent's dismay). My counselors at my community college aren't that helpful either.

A secondary question would be how can I set these goals and not be dismayed or discouraged by the level of difficulty and specialization (i.e. low number of job opportunities) in my dream field on my academic and career path?

there are always stories about lost cities in south and central america, but what are the changes of a new lost city discovery in south east asia? I know places like angor wat and the recent rumors of gelanggi. But what about the forest of borneo, other islands in indonesia or the best example: new guinea, litterally the most unexplored region on earth. Theres gonna be something there right? or doesnt that match at all with the history and archaeological finds there?

In my opinion slavery doesn't make that much sense financially. You have to pay a significant price to buy a slave but there is going to be some who die or or become disabled before they produce enough to be worth it. When that happens it'd be like buying a car and losing your investment entirely after only a few years or even a few months. Then on top of that you have to pay to house and feed them, and you need to secure them so they don't either run away or try to kill you.

I understand that at larger scale they can combine some of these costs, but it still seems more logical to me to just pay someone peanuts wages in those times and let them buy their own food, housing and healthcare when they go home. Yet my understanding is slave owners did indeed get hella rich off the practice and beat out the people doing it the wages way. Why was owning them instead of just paying them so valuable?

With the new movie "The Woman King" out in theaters, I have been reading a bit about the historical accuracy. While I have not seen the film yet, it is said to focus on the Agojie being in conflict with their king and other political forces to stop dealing in the slave trade and instead focus on other economies like the exportation of palm products to support their kingdom.

It is well researched that the Dahomey engaged in slavery. Both using captured neighbors for their own needs as well as trafficking's them to the Europeans. It is also well known that the British and other European neighbors were actively trying to stop the slave trade in the mid 19th century. While we all know the despicableness of slavery, the British's desire to end it was not based on wholly ethical terms. There were economic factors as play including the mainland's antipathy to the colonies, such as those in the West Indies, who were overproducing sugar and other products. There were other economic forces like the promise (and payment) of compensation to slave owners some of whom would profit more by being paid for their slaves.

I am interested in any research which shows what the internal conflict in the Kingdom of Dahomey was about in regards to their position on slavery. It has been shown that Africans engaging in the slave trade committed atrocities as bad (if not far worse) in acquiring slaves that would rival the Europeans and American's treatment of the slave. I am wondering why the Royalty (and his allies) were so intent on keeping the slave trade going vs the Agojie's alleged aversion to it.

By all accounts the Agojie were physically and mentally conditioned to think/be like men (by their own accounts) so I wouldn't think a "fairer sex" argument about the morality of slavery would come into play. It would seem from a religious/political perspective the Agojie were not outside the rest of Dahomey. Did the Agojie simply see fighting the Europeans on this matter a loosing proposition and decided that economically it was the best response?

It seems everyone I ask that went to primary/elementary school in the mid to late 80s or early 90s played this game, often on a lonely computer carted from classroom to classroom. How did this game find its way into schools all over America? Was it specifically designed as an educational tool?

I read that 90% of the soldiers in the first wave of the beach storm were killed.

Obviously the generals and officers in charge of the operation were aware of the imminent blood bath, but how much was disclosed to those actually storming the beach?

I am not sure if this would be known, but I speculate that for the sake of operational success, it was not in the leaders best interests to fully disclose to the soldiers how horrendously deadly the invasion would be.

I was reading about the break-up of Charlemagne's empire, and I was wondering why the imperial title was vacant for the 38 years between the death of Berengar and the coronation of Otto I. Lothair, Louis II, Charles the Bald, Charles the Fat, and Berengar had all used the titles "king of Italy" and "emperor of the Romans," but Rudolph II of Burgundy, who defeated Berengar, only took the title king of Italy, and not the imperial title. Why didn't Rudolph or any of his successors until Otto I use the imperial title? Did the Pope not want to crown any of them?

My grandmother died about 15 years ago, but one story she liked to tell is that during WW2, German prisoners were held at the county fairgrounds in rural Wisconsin. Given the number of German-American citizens in the area who were fluent in German, they would often go talk to the prisoners through the fences.

My question: is it possible that the US took German prisoners of war and would have held them in places like rural Wisconsin?

I'm trying to figure out—based on where the war was actually fought—how that would even logistically make sense.

Did he really make a fur coat made of squirrels? Why would he do that? I heard a little that no fur was available or hard to come by at the time?. Anyways i heard he slain 12000 squirrels to do it, so where the heck did he find 12k squirrels!?
Asking for my wife lol. She doesn't believe that he did lol, and i barely believe it either lol.

Edit: So does that mean Henry the 4th the slayer of squirrels!? Lol. He should have been called that! Lol.

I hear a lot about the abysmally small size of the British Army throughout history since its foundation. It is widely concluded it was more logical for the British to invest more into a naval force than a land force for obvious reasons. In the Napoleonic Wars, Wellington's victorious army in Spain wasn't even "British" in the sense that most of the army was made up of Spanish and Portuguese. The great victory of Waterloo was won by a "British" army of 68,000, of which only 25,000 were British.

I have two questions-

1. Has this always been the case? If so, and if it did need an army, did the British Isles ever have the population base and resources to seriously contend with France, Austria, or Prussia on land?
2. I have read that the British Army for most of its history has been small, but very professional (as if it's a redeeming quality). It seems like a useless statement to me because it's not compared to anything, and one can say the same for the French under Napoleon or the Prussians under Frederick or the Swedes under King Charles. So, with what evidence we have how does the quality (training, discipline, technology) of the British ranks (infantry, artillery, cavalry, supply) compare to that of the French in 1806, the French in 1855, and the North German Confederation in 1873?