It's my understanding that the Irish Famine is not usually understood to meet the legal definition of genocide; are there any reputable dissenters to this view? I also know very little about the consensus view of Cromwell's actions

The Rio Grande makes sense but the rest seems open to colonial imperialist interpretation. Curious why the US didn’t annex Baja California with California. Seems like it would’ve made sense contextually speaking.

Reading about the United Arab Republic, the dysfunction of the integration between just Syria and Egypt and the conflicts Nasser had with Iraq’s Qasim, was there ever a real chance for one nation to unite the Arabs?

Regardless of the topic I'm curious to see what is out there in terms of narrative history books. I like history books that try to recreate what happened and turn history into more of a story than a broad overview or dry accounting of facts. I like details. Examples of what I'm looking for include: The War that Made America by Fred Anderson, Devil in the White City by Erik Larson, Our Beloved Kin: A New History of King Phillip's War by Lisa Brooks (I've only read a little snippet but I think she does some reimagining of what the world of the Wamponoag was like).

Additionally I'm interested in books like Games without Rules: The Often-Interrupted History of Afghanistan by Tamim Ansary where the author kind of inserts some of their own personality and maybe a little humor while weaving a story. This is probably the most different from the other books mentioned but suggestions like Pirate Hunters by Robert Kurson, would also be welcome where historical facts and stories are integrated into a more modern story of trying to find out more about the past.

Thanks.

I know there was wars between Athens and Sparta, and that weren't very friends each other, how enemies were the Greeks between eachother? Was a enmty between the Greeks cities all the time or were just sometimes? If was always or very often, why? They recognized eachother as part of the same nationality?

I read that in a cencus over the congolese population in 1924 where they estimated a population of 10mil. There are also many videos popping up saying that king leopold killed over 10-15 million people during the time he owned it. Is this true or even possible? I live in norway and we learn about the holocaust and the exploitastion of natives and blacks, but i had it learn this by doing own reasearch, is there a reason why we dont learn about this, like a lack of info or something?

To elaborate, the population of native Americans declined rapidly from 1492, losing around 90% percent of its population by the late 17th century. Several countries were involved over the span of about 400 years. So, would this be just a very long genocide, or a series of atrocities on the micro scale that all fit into one genocide?

I've heard of the existence of diaries, which has testimonies from women in said era, talking about their confusion regarding how sex functioned, what pregnancy was, and the like, but have been unable to find any reference to them myself

As a follow-up question: Do such diaries exist? Do they accurately portray the average level of knowledge of sex, among women in Victorian england?

Iirc the allied-soviet border just before the nazi surrender was quite a bit west of berlin...

Recently, I have been looking into the history of the British in Africa, specifically from the 1880's and 1890's. In my reading I have inevitably come across the existence of the Boer Republics of the Transvaal and Orange Free State.

I was wondering what the differences between them were. The Free State didn't seem to have a Kruger type as leader, though it still had its run ins with native populations and other colonial powers.

With them being, to my understanding, independent of each other I was wondering what differences, if any, existed between them.

Thanks!

Apparently the Allies were very fond of Balbo for being a great guy or whatever. I read a bit of his wiki, he seemed to have anti-fascist leanings and was known to the American public as an aviator.

When he was killed in a friendly fire incident early in the war, a British general ordered a plane to drop a condolence package onto the Italian airfield containing a wreath and message detailing how much Balbo was loved and respected and sympathy for losing him.

I've never heard of anything like this happening, was it common in WWII? It was early in the war and the Africa campaign was known for being less brutal, so those are factors. Do we know how the Italians reacted, or if this caused any pause in conflic.

Also, what were the logistics of setting this up this operation? It seems kind of stupid to risk losing a plane and pilot when there are other ways to communicate the message. The Italians could have just shot it down and get pissed that they're being harassed after losing their favorite general.

If anyone can shed light on this particular event, it would be very appreciated! It's oddly fascinating to me, reminds me of the Chrismas football match in WWI.

This may have been asked before, but I'm terrible at searching post histories and didn't see it.

It's pretty clear from historical sources that at least the upper class seceded and fought the civil war over slavery. It was what was sustaining their way of life.

Are there any sources that show what the average citizen thought the war was about? Were they fighting for the same causes or was propaganda used to convince them the north was doing something else?

I’m not asking about how European disease spread. It’s is clear that it spread along trade routes through trade routes and other routine tribal national communication e.g. marriages, shared borders, meetings of leaders.

Settlement was limited in the first few decades after European arrival and was relatively scattered. For example the British settlement of North America was limited to groups of settlements along the Atlantic coast of North America. Spanish expeditions went further into the interior, but were still not comprehensive and not necessarily for demographic data gathering.

Demographic data from that era would have to have a reasonable range: e.g 80 million with a margin for error of +- 5%. However, how does a demographic historian reach an accurate number for population groups in an area as vast as the America, many decentralized population groups, and probably a majority of population groups that did not record their own demographic data.

I'm assuming it isn't very true, but is it based on a true event? Was there anything like this during the Space Race, where one side over-engineered a solution to a problem that the other side had a very simple solution for?

Iirc there were 3 small (around 15 planes) waves attacking at different times before the final actual grand strike of 50 planes, and as expected the small waves accomplished almost nothing but getting slaughtered by the Japanes fighters (to be fair the last wave was a good diversion, but it doesn't look like that was the point of the attack). Why did they attack in waves insead of forming a strong 80-90 planes force? Even the planes from the Midway base arrived at four different times.

Not so much time zones themselves, but the concept that day on one side of earth is night on the other. If I'm an ancient philosopher would this even occur to me?

So when the sun is overhead in Athens, it'll still be a few hours before that sun is overhead in Lisbon, you could travel between the two cities, but you'd hardly notice, as the trip would take days.

Could you rationalize the curvature of the earth with time to somehow figure out that half of the world would be in night?

Or did it take till the proliferation of clocks and compasses?

I was thinking about Rodrigo Borgia, who of course was Pope Alexander VI, and wondering whether the name Alexander was more amenable to the Catholic God that Rodrigo was. I’m sure it’s much more complicated than that, so I came to a place where people would know.

Who started this practice, and why has it endured into modern day? And, perhaps as a related question, why were two recent popes (John Paul I and Francis I) able to originate their papal names?

Did Mehmet the conqueror buy the hagia sophia ? Or did he just acquire it due the conquest?

Hitler is today generally considered the worst humanity has ever produced, his name gets used in hyperbolic arguments, and the Nazis are a very popular template for evil regimes in fantasy and sci-fi. Was there anyone who held this distinction in previous eras? Ghengis Khan? Nero? Was there a leader or a regime/dynasty that was popularly considered the worst of the worst long after they were gone?