I'm looking for book recommendations on the topic of non-western influences on western art. Especially Modern art.

I want to clarify, I mean no disrespect to any veteran; I myself am considering the military. Nevertheless, no one can deny that what used to be an elite, highly regarded position now goes to high schools to recruit kids at random.

Given that the Leeward and Windward Treaties that led to the end of the First Maroon War obligated the Maroons to return runaway slaves to their plantations, it's left me massively confused.

Many of the sources I've read simply mention the contents of the treaties without acknowledging how strange it seems, and furthermore the gist of what came beforehand was "the Maroons kicked English ass". For them to abandon such a strong position and effectively become party to a practice they'd been victims of is pretty bonkers, was wondering if someone who's done more reading on the subject knows more about the ins and outs?

There are two things I noticed whilst conducting research on important Japanese historical people:

1. Some people's first name and surname were connected by the possesive particle の (no), e.g. Minamoto no Yoshitsune. However, that possesive particle seems to be missing in some cases, e.g. Tokugawa Ieyasu. Why is that and how come modern Japanese names are not connected by a の at all?

2. As a young boy, Yoshitsune went by the name of Ushiwakamaru. Was this just an individual case or was it common to go by two names? At which point did children go by their "adult form"?

Thank you for reading my post.

I’m thinking - the treaty was signed in April 1949 and was definitely underway by April 1982 when the Falklands War began between Britain and Argentina. On 2 April 1982, Argentine forces moved onto the islands - If this was considered an act of war, then did Britain try and enlist the help of its NATO allies? I don’t recall reading anywhere that this was done. If not, was it due to anti-imperialism?

I’m not very knowledgable on the later Roman period and the Byzantines and want to know more.

This admittedly might just be an incorrect perception, but I've recently been reading a few books on the crusades. I keep getting the feeling that they treat the Ordensstaat as this unique political identity that is defined by a crusading force holding political power over a region without being beholden to a sovereign ruler. But, I'm struggling to understand why this is any different than other Crusader holdings in Malta or Rhodes. I remember my undergrad crusade class emphasizing that, even in kingdoms where the crusaders technically served at behest of the king, they often had defacto rule over their territories.

Any idea why this distinction has emerged?

I think this can be questioned in various parts of history. It's a meme that as the Victorian women did not show their ankles, people would find their ankles "hot", as we today would consider breasts etc.

Is their any truth to this? To my knowledge, attraction is often born from sexual dimorphism, which doesn't apply to the ankles.

Were ankles actually considered sexy?

How was honey collected in early history? In many descriptions of elaborate feasts of the time they use loads of honey. Obviously sugar hasn't been imported to europe yet so it was the most prominent sweetener. Were there early beekeepers? Did people just search for beehives in the wild and steal the honey? Was there a honey collector profession?

Is it simply because it was a part of the Byzantine empire, and thus was up for grabs, or is there any other specific reason for it?

Why would humans worship a race of deities who tortured the one who created them and gave them fire to eternal torment? Most other religions credit the origins of humanity with their ruling deities. Egyptians believed humans were created from the tears and sweat of Ra, the king of the gods. The Norse believed Ask and Embla were blessed by Odin, the king of the gods. Abrahamic religions believe that Adam and Eve were created by the only God. Etc.

The Greeks very clearly did NOT believe that the current ruling gods were responsible for their creation, and in fact they overthrew and destroyed the race of beings that were and tortured the one directly responsible. Was there any deeper cultural meaning behind this?

Hi ! I'm looking for a good book about the history of IRA without biased form either British or Irish side do you guys now any ?

This is a blank spot that's glossed over in most of the history sources I read, but how exactly do sort of informal or de facto powerbrokers force more formal, legitimate, or de jure authorities to play ball or cede ground while remaining legitimate? Take, for example, Japan during the Kenmu Restoration and its fallout, where a Japanese Emperor sought to restore the imperial family to actual power and was put down by a shogun-to-be called Ashikaga Takauji. Ashikaga forced the emperor to abdicate, but how exactly? From the limited amount I know about Japanese imperial ideology, it wouldn't be an option to kill or threaten a sitting emperor or the imperial family. Literally nobody would have supported that move. What would Ashikaga have to force him to do that? What did that conversation look like? Why didn't the Emperor just say no, or order him to stop all that treasonous nonsense? If the Emperor had told him to stop, how would Ashikaga maintain the appearance of legitimacy?

I'm not disputing that de facto power loci do usurp de jure or obsolete power loci. It seems like it happens all the time. But with the possible exception of better documented modern examples or the Carolingian mayors of the palace asking the Pope permission to overthrow the Merovingians, I'm curious about how that happens at the moment of pivot without losing the legitimacy that's conferred by the older, maybe obsoleted power source. Ostensibly that legitimacy is why these de jure authorities are kept around in the first place, but it's vague how they lose de facto power in the first place, let alone why they aren't able to actually use their legitimacy to wield real authority? This is becoming sort of a ramble at this point, but when I see history books talk about how Shoguns use nudges to rule for the Emperor, even against his wishes, and Hapsburgs use winks to render a de jure elective institution de facto hereditary, I have to think there's more that goes into it than that, and I'm curious about that mechanism.

I may be mistaken(its been 15 years since I read them) but I believe Seneca or Epictetus said something like "hey guys, I know we believe life is the same as death and all, but please stop killing yourselves. Seriously". Is there any to this?

With the conquest, the Roman Empire was officially ended, and at the time, it was still seen as the Roman Empire, as the Byzantine Empire is the name used mainly by modern historians. I'm curious how the inhabitants of the city that birthed the empire reacted to the news that it had been destroyed. Was there mourning, ambivalence, despair, apathy, anger...?

The American revolution. Why didn't it end up like the other revolutions in most countries? The French revolution, the Russian revolution? All these revolutions happened with the idea of making a better place for the people. Yet they were always met with a single ruler who some how got power.

What made Americas revolution so different? the amount of states that wanted some type of self-governance?

Sorry if that's a silly question but it just made me curious cause I even heard George Washington, was offered some type of kingly position and turned it down? why?

Were we simply taxed as British citizens? And when did the taxation end? We don't pay taxes to the UK anymore.

I'm listening to the fall of Civilization Podcast and have previously read Diamond's "Collapse". Now, the podcast author pointed out enormous issues with diamond's basic thesis of enviromental degredation. He points out that one of the central parts of Diamond's thesis: that the forests on the island were cut down to build Maoi statues, is wrong. And that Diamond's thesis of extensive wars waged throughout the island for dwindling resources are contradicted by the lack of foritified positions and weapons common on other Polynesian islands.

The podcast author portrays Easter Island society as more or less intact all the way until first contact with Europeans. And that it was the trauma of contact, European disease, slavers and violence which destroyed the society.

However, the one part that's not really accounted for is that the population of Easter Island purportly dropped from a high of 15,000 to only around 3,000 or so in the century BEFORE the first Europeans came to the island. It seems -something- not European had to be responsible for this drop.

So Did this population drop actually occur? Or did the first European estimate of the population simply undercount? Did enviromental degredation already led to the destruction of most of the island population and the Europeans simply finished off the rest? Or were European colonizers responsible for destroying a society which more or less found a way to exist within the ecological boundaries of the island? What's the current state of the debate on the cause of the destruction of the traditional Rapa Nui culture?