From another post on this sub I learned that even Corinth, despite being powerful enough to challenge Athens on the seas, was subservient to Sparta.

Was it able to stay strong compared to other powers due to its neutrality whilst they weakened each other? Why was it never punished for being unreliable (either from the Greco-Persian wars or any others)?

Its position on the map seems like it would hold strategic importance (although I must admit, like on many things I am ignorant here).

Edit: removed a wrong misconception I asked about that I misrepresented to seem as more common, but was me making a biased mistake.

What impacts did early Islamic culture have on the western world? I'm aware that Algebra originated from Islamic society, but that the extent of my knowledge.

I'm more of a science guy and don't know much about history, but currently reading "Custer's Trials" about General Custer. He was in Westpoint in the years leading up to the Civil War, then became famous fighting for the Union before his Westward adventures. While he is at Westpoint it is talking about the political climate at that time in America with the Democrats, Whigs and new Republican party and sort of the overall mindset in America.

So, I understand slavery from an "intellectual" or logical perspective. The South had built its entire economy on Slavery and wanted to ensure that it could expand this economy Westward. So obviously if you are a plantation owner, or you lived in a city or town where your resources were coming from Slave labor or whatever, you would be resistant to change.

But for all the people like Custer, who's family had never owned slaves, wasn't wealthy, didn't come from the "deep" south, etc, but still believed that slavery was "right" and that the government shouldn't infringe upon the right to own slaves, how does that work psychologically????

Like, there were many people who weren't even racist, but believed that slavery shouldn't be abolished, while at the same time there were many who openly showed how morally illogical and unnecessary the "peculiar institution" was. In earlier times it kind of makes sense because it would have been so widespread that most wouldn't have questioned it, or would have just said "well that's just how it is, even if it isn't fair" But by the 1860s it seems like the only people who could justify slavery were the slaveowners themselves and those living in the deep south...

How can I better understand the psychology of those who lived in the north, and didn't rely on slavery, and were exposed to the concept if it being a terrible institution, and yet still supported it?

Sorry for the wall of text, I know it's a hugely complex question, thanks for any insight!

It’s a topic I really would love to learn more about. Could anybody provide some good books to read upon it?

Maybe I'm being cynical, but I don't see the sugar plantation owners in the Carib suddenly offering their surviving former slaves fair wages for the work. Did they continue to exploit the population of ex-slaves, like happened in the American South after the Civil War, or did they somehow import cheap (but technically free) labor, or what?

That means, there was any antifascist organizations/movements that were liberal, conservative etc? Could one be both anticommunist and antifascist?

Asking because there's some monopoly over the word "antifascism" by the movement "Antifa".

Thank you, all

Calvin Coolidge was president right up until 1929, just before the Great Depression. Herbert Hoover seems to get the most flak for his contributions to the Great Depression, rightfully so since it happened under his presidency. How did Coolidge and his very laissez-faire approach to economics contribute to the Great Depression, if at all?

I have two relatives (grandfather and great uncle, both deceased) that I know of who served in WW2. My grandfather was a cook on Adak Island in the Aleutian Islands around ‘44-‘45. My great uncle was an “F2C V6,” which I think is a fireman or somebody who worked in the engine room. Could be wrong. He was on the USS Washington (BB 56) from 10/31/44 to at least 3/31/45.

I would like some recommendations on books (if any exist) that could help explain what they did. Granted, I understand a cook on Adak Island probably won’t be much of a book, let alone exciting.

So there is obviously no end of information about Swiss mercenaries on the battlefield, they were a force to be reckoned with after all, but I can find a lot less readily available information about them off the battlefield.

I have a whole bunch I'd like to know, and have found various bits of information about a lot of it that I won't mention here so as to not mix up replies, but in general the points I'm most curious about is as follows:

• Where did the individuals come from, both those in command and the foot-soldiers?
• How were supplies, equipment etc organised?
• Who decided where they went to fight and on what level was this done; did a whole Canton go off to war, or were there smaller units that could be hired?
• Were they trained to work together just in their 100 man blocks, or was there extensive training of battlefield manoeuvres involving a whole Cantons forces?
• And, possibly straying into battlefield organisation a bit here, were there uniforms, and if so based on what?

Thanks for any insight you can give.

I've never heard of either of these events, and am only just now hearing about it from a video of Kimberly Jones on Youtube. What actually happened, and has there been any follow-up, or repercussions for any of this? I know this is a very broad question, but I would appreciate any info.

Could someone provide a synopsis of the supposed debates between historians Daniel Goldhagen and Christopher Browning regarding their books in Holocaust historiography?

edit: whoops, there* not their

It seems self-evident that it would at least occur to impressed sailors to burn or otherwise disable the ship that was, in effect, their prison.

Hey everyone,

I’m just hoping some people here might be able to help/advice on getting the Royal Navy service records for my Granduncle, who served in the Royal Navy during World War II.

Unfortunately, he passed in the 1970s and his wife followed suit in the very early 2000s. They had no immediate next of kin. The only next of kin he had was my father, who is his nephew. He had passed when my father was in his early teens, and they never met.

My family and I have started trying to find out more about him, and his legacy means a great deal to me. We successfully located his grave in Liverpool and we have his death certificate. However, I would love to find out much more about his service in the Royal Navy and if we could perhaps find his service records.

Whilst I have most of the information required for an online service request to the Ministry of Defence in London, I unfortunately cannot find his service number. I am wondering if you may have any recourses that may help in my locating of his service number?

Alongside this, I am also wondering would it be easier to get access to the service records if I were to go, in person, to the Ministry of Defence in London and assist with whatever they need in identifying my granduncle. Any information on this would be fantastic.

Thanks again everyone! All information and help is super appreciated. I would just love to be able to find out everything that happened to him. I feel so proud to have him in my bloodline, and I wouldn’t like his memory of his service to become forgotten.

I have had multiple people claim police organizations started off for the sole purpose of catching slaves. I have not found any proof for or against this claim other than clickbate articles.

To me the idea of a hundred thousand troops seems kind of outlandish. Especially when you consider the archaeological record that Troy only had a population of around 10,000. This means that the city would generously have only had a defense force of 6,000 fighting men (assuming they hired some mercenaries). Assuming that we are going to give the benefit of the doubt to the Illiad and say that siege craft was not at a point to take a two story sized wall, even when the attackers outnumbered the defenders 10 to 1. You would still think a force the size of a hundred thousand would easily have been able to starve out Troy before it reached the enormous length of 9 years.

While I would believe that the Greeks had 20-30 thousand soldiers (that's also probably generous). I'm of the thought that the Greeks and Romans have probably exaggerated the numbers over the years to fit the scale of warfare in their contemporary era. Because like with our own movies, when you see historically accurate depictions. It's suddenly not so grand

It seems pretty clear that the right to peacefully assemble was important to the architects of the Constitution, at least when faced with fresh infringement on such a right by the British. But once the newly independent American central government was established, to what degree did those same men retain their view of a protesting citizenry? Did they change their tune once in the seat of power?

Hi y'all! I want to gift someone, who enjoys reading history, a BOOK. All i know is that his favorite moment in history is World war I. Hoping you guys could suggest me a few books which are not popular. Thanks!

I've seen a few old english noblemen with a lion on their family Crest. How would this have been possible? The lions also are pictured as African lions. I could understand if they were mountain lions but the fact that they are African lions is what is puzzling. I cant imagine there was much travel to Africa 100s of years ago. Did they create a Crest with an animal they had never seen before but only heard rumors of? Or where there once big lions that roamed in England back then?

Lately i have been seeing this statement echoed on social media, "The gender binary is a product of western colonialism" how factual is this statement?

Please give sources that i can read in my spare time, thank you.

Also which one of them had overall superior Anti Air performance ?