Hi all,

I was hoping someone could help me in understanding the West (in particular the western media's) response to/coverage of the Prague Spring. I have some understanding that it wasn't very widely covered because of ongoing issues in the Vietnam war.

If anyone has any sources they can point me to that'd be great too :)

In 1776, Spain created the viceroyalty of Rio de la Plata from the viceroyalty of Peru, and included a small strip of coastline on the Pacific. I can’t seem to find a motive for this, other than that the strip in question was under the jurisdiction of the Real Audiencia of Charcas, which was transferred to Rio de la Plata.

Hello everyone, I'm considering reading Life and Terror in Stalin's Russia by Robert Thurston, as I'm interested in books that aren't inherently anti-Stalin with a naunced take on the purges, but I fear that it might be outdated since it was published in 1996. Am I correct in thinking that? Are there any other recommendations then?

I was reading a few past answers on this subreddit about Pomeranz's theory regarding the great divergence, and there seemed to be somewhat of a consensus about the fact that the picture Pomeranz creates is misleading and overly optimistic. Could someone elucidate the manner in which the data was misread/ incorrectly interpreted and whether this was a result of his overall methodology or just by virtue of a lack of data? Examples/reading would be helpful too.

Thanks!

I was wondering, because there's many depicted in videogames and movies, but is it accurate to reality, either if it would be effective for training or were swordsmanship practice more effective against other opponents?

Hi all, I am writing a novel and have a question regarding the crown used for Edward IV's coronation on Sunday 28th June 1461. All I can find out is that he was crowned king at Westminster Abbey. Would the original St Edward's Crown have been used? The one melted down in 1649 ?

Thanks in advance.

Is it because of the cultural revolution

It seems to me that most military uniforms from the 17th through the early 19th century were incredibly impractical, for example:

-Hats that did not offer protection from the sun or elements, and look like all they were good for was getting in the way.

-Shoes that would not be comfortable to march in, and/or would fall apart quickly if put to hard use (even when comparatively sturdy and comfortable boots were available at the time).

-Heavy wool jackets that would have restricted movement and caused overheating 6 months out of the year, and also tended to be bright colors, making soldiers easy targets.

Am I missing something about the practicality of these uniforms? I know part of the purpose of these uniforms was to impress, but I would think the detrimental effect on soldiers ability to fight effectively would have outweighed aesthetic considerations.

I know steel armor was never completely phased out (one British soldier's journal mentions the sound of musket balls bouncing off the breast plates of French troops at Waterloo), so the idea of steel armor wasn't forgotten, yet they were still fighting in beaver hats. I'd think it would have been fairly straightforward to outfit soldiers with loose fitting tunics, jackboots, and steel helmets, similar to what most armies started using in WWI.

I’ve recently been getting into Roman history and noticed that a lot of Roman history we know the generals of what happened and the key figures but when it comes to the era near the end of the Roman Republic it feels like we know tons. Like with all the figures of Caesar, Mark Antony, Cicero, Octavian, and Pompey it feels like we know much more details about this than other periods of Roman History. Am I completely wrong about this? And if not is it because we just have more info or is it just because that’s the most popular era to learn about?

Were the Americas unique in their diversity of appealing (to Europeans at least) foods, as to my knowledge nothing native is really eaten other than kangaroo and I'm nearly certain that only we australians eat it. Most of the early settlers and convicts would've probably tried everything, especially if they saw aboriginals eating it, did nothing on offer here appeal enough to them to stick long term and enter the general diet, do we have any records of their opinions or anything? Thanks!!

Now obviously hitler was no good guy. The holocaust, invading Russia, and other terrible things. The other tyrants mentioned also tried to conquer the world and such. Genghis Khan slaughtered the city of Baghdad and Napoleon burned down Moscow. Yet these people are celebrated and have statues and tombs built in there honor. So why are these guys viewed as heroes, while hitler is viewed as the living embodiment of evil?

I hear people saying is Israel is evil and controls the world & "the Jews" where does this all come from?

Or maybe they did - I have very little knowledge regarding what they'd use as armour, but would assume leather would be pretty easy to make use of.

I'm not sure about time periods - before the Europeans showed up, I suppose.

If I’m ever out fishing, I’ll often wonder about what fishing would be like without all the research and gadgets that’s are at the common fisherman’s disposal. Such as boats, fish finders, plastic jigs. Without those things, I would have viewed fishers as unsuccessful when attempting to fish. But surely people were able to make a hobby out of it, or even a living. Was fishing effecient for the common man as it is today, or was is it not even an attainable hobby and strictly left for people making a living off it?

What about intellectuals who wrote in Classical Chinese which was a respected language taught in Japanese schools? Were they encouraged to switch to Japanese too?