We're usually taught about how the party came to power, and then about who was minister of this and that, and the main military chiefs, but how did the political system work?

What happened to the Reichstag and other institutions, were they considered redundant? Were there still elections, or at least projects of elections for local Nazi representatives? What happened to other non-left political parties, were they persecuted like the communists?

​

Thank you for any answer you may give me.

Is it fair/anachronistic to call the Anglo-Saxons 'English'? And when did a distinctly 'English' identity first emerge?

What was the system for voting that they suggested instead of political parties of which one might be a member/consistent voter? Did they have an idea of what it could be instead, and tried to enshrine that in law? Or was this a case of disapproval and finger wagging "you'll see" than anything else?

What kind of people were the Founding Fathers? Were they average Americans patriots or elite british colonists that decided to rebel and launch a power coup on their monarch?

Or were there instances of rape/sexual assault from the white slaveholder of the same family/generation of women of slaves that their kids would end up almost white? And if it was happening, was it easier for them to escape (if they were)? Are there some resources/books where i could learn more about the topic?

Thanks in advance!

My first time asking a question, sorry if I made any mistakes :)

Warfare in ancient Greece was centered around the hoplite, armored infantrymen wielding spears and shields. Warfare in Medieval Europe (and in many other parts of the world around 1500 CE) nearly 2000 years later seems to employ similar tactics, and battlefield strategy did not dramatically transform until the introduction of gunpowder weapons. Were there really no other technologies as disruptive to military tactics as guns were, or is that just a modern misconception?

I ask this as in the last five months I have made a habit of writing a daily journal. In my time being a student of history I have occasionally come across historians saying something to the effect of “I wish they wrote down how that worked or what that part of their life was like in more detail”. With that in mind what should we in the present keep in mind to make sure we write down about our lives?

Recently I did some reading on Truman’s transition to presidency that touched on FDR’s poor health. It’s stated he had arteriosclerosis, cardiac failure, acute bronchitis, and potentially cancer according to some sources in early 1944. With all of that, he ran for re-election.

What really surprised me is the passive role he played in the selection of VP. From my understanding he stated that his choice of VP would rely solely on the vote of the 1944 National Democratic Convention. If FDR understood his failing health, I feel like he would have been more active in his VP selection.

I am curious why he didn’t hand over presidency over to another democrat and properly prepare them. He had even seen this done with the presidency during Theodore Roosevelt and Taft. Did they simply chose not to do this because of the war? Or was it truly thought he would survive his fourth term?

Did FDR believe he would finish his 4th term?

I recently listened to Parenti's lecture on Caesar's rise to power. He makes many claims in it that contradict the portrait of Caesar painted by my educators. Classes hardly focused on the domestic politics of Rome, so I can't make heads or tails of his perspective. Caesar was always made to be a brilliant general who exploited his armies faith in him to coup the republic and become dictator without popular mandate. Parenti's commentary almost makes me sympathetic to his rule however, especially considering the harsh living conditions of the average Roman.

What does Parenti get right? What does he get incorrect? And is his perspective a useful lense when viewing historical moments?

Edit: Parenti also depicts Roman politicians as ineffectual rulers who treated campaigning as a popularity contest rather than having policy goals. What similarities can be drawn between modern democracies and this period of Roman politics?

I am kind of baffled by the existence of this blank space. Western Slavs have some mythology about three brothers, Czech, Lech and Rus, giving the rise of Czechs, Polish and Russian people (strangely since Russians are not Western Slavs). From 6th century, we know existence about Samo's Empire, where Samo's is said to be Frankish trader, but that seems to be also disputed. Then there is Great Moravia and we know more about them from Franks. But before 6th century, I know nothing about my region.

But how did Czechs got into the lands of Boii (or Markomans)? What about the other Polabian Slavs in Pomerania and even as far as Meklenburg? Where did they come from? And when?

Is it even possible that Roman historians and geographers didn't see the diference between different barbarians and what we think were Germanic tribes were Slavs? (I have read some conspiracy theory regarding Suebi).

The show was Battles BC which aired on the history channel years ago and I found the rivalry between the Egyptians and Hittites fascinating, but would love to learn more about the ensuing conflict between the three of them. I did try some searching online but I’m not exactly sure where to start or how to properly word what I’m looking for so I’m here to ask the experts.

Thank you for what you do on this subreddit!

I'm specifically wondering about world-War Era times, but other time periods are welcome.

So, this is something I hear a lot, and was reinforced in a summer class I’m taking on East Asian history. Because the title “Oldest still existing civilization” is often and uniquely given to China, I’m assuming there must be some real basis to this. But, in my cursory knowledge of Chinese history, they went through just as many, or even more, regime changes, invasions, and culture shifts as anywhere else. Is it accurate to actually call China “the oldest intact civilization”, or is it just bad history based on lack of knowledge and historical stereotypes?

I’ve done a roundup of revolutionary and Imperial France (which started all this), 1848, Italian Unification, and some Early American history, our revolution, Lewis and Clark, federalism vs Jefferson. Now I’m looking for a good book, preferably audio book, on not European or American history at this time. I don’t know much more than broad strokes about East Asia or India at this time, and most of what I found is centered on colonialism, which again, seems Europe focused. Any advice or recommendations. Tried to fit the rules sorry if not.

In medieval times, cities existed. a city is huge, surounded by walls and filled with the people you're supposed to defend. A castle is essentially a big fortified house.

So how do they cohabitate? Would castles be inside cities? so often in fiction there's just a castle sitting in the middle of nowhere, was that actually done or did the noble/king need to be near his own population.

if i'm not clear tell me.

Hello!

This is a bit of a niche ask I feel, but I'm looking for recommendations on the history of Chile. I'd like the book to be a general overview, preferably from before colonization to as close to today as possible, but if that's not possible then at least something that starts at Chile's revolution.

Thanks a lot for your help!

In terms of the revolution, are there any recommended books on how the war was actually won i.e tactics, deployments, battle descriptions, socioeconomic factors?

I'm Indian and especially with Indian women, lighter skin is generally considered to be more attractive, to the point where there's beauty products and techniques aimed at making women lighter skinned. I've heard that similar beauty ideals/standards exist in other Asian countries, like the Philippines and Korea, from my friends who are from those places.

Something that I hear a lot is that this is a direct result of European colonization. This is a pretty simple thought process as far as I can tell: white people were legally and socially superior for decades or centuries, so being lighter skinned became more attractive even after independence. This seems logical to me, but I don't think it's impossible that lighter skin was also historically considered more beautiful.

Is there any historical evidence to support this or is this just conjecture?

My Google search said that it was thanks to the Rosetta stone which had the same text in different languages. I can't imagine learning to read Chinese by studying a few words written in English, Italian and chinese.

About how easy was it to get away with murder (as in planned homicide) in the 30s and 40s with leaving little to no clues on who did it? I'm writing I story of a serial killer in the 30s and 40s, specifically the setting is America.

This is a question that I have been thinking about for awhile. We all know that World War I went by several different names (The Great War, The War to End all Wars, etc.) during the time it occurred but at what point did people start calling World I, World War I? Does it have anything to do with the emergence of World War II?