I’ve recently been reading a ton of bad history about how “National Socialist=Socialist” and I’ve realized that I don’t own any books about the history of the party. I’m looking for books that cover the history of the party (from beginning to end). Also am extremely interested in the policies enacted by Hitler before the war (social, economic, etc). Any other books that you think I might be interested in are welcomed. Thanks in advance!

Over the past couple of days I’ve noticed so much discussion about people claiming various things about people who lived, 200, 500, 1000 years ago—namely their medical problems. I’m going to name some names....

The first claim that I came across, that I saw upset several people in fact, was the claim that Democritus had autism, or was on the autism spectrum. I saw one person argue that it would be simply far too difficult to make such a claim because their simply did not exist enough evidence to substantiate such a claim about a man living in Ancient Greece.

The next claim that I came across - that was particularly shocking to me - was that it is apparently true that Julius Caesar had epilepsy. Again, I’m not saying it’s false but I also don’t know that it is true. The next person I saw, that also apparently had epilepsy was Fyodor Dostoyevsky.

But yeah, can we really know if these historical personages had these illnesses, or is there some difficulty in some case perhaps with people like Democritus?

Especially in comparison to its retention as an official language in many former African colonies.

Edit: also in comparison to East Timor (Portuguese still official) and the Philippines (where Spanish has declined but has a role designated in the constitution).

Hey everyone,

I was reading something on Wikipedia the other day about the Pragmatic Sanction of 1713 where the Holy Roman Emperor was able to change the succession law in the empire to allow Maria Theresa to inherit. The question I have is that it seemed like he had to get approval from like every major power and a lot of minor powers in Europe to make this change. Was that because of the nature of the Holy Roman Empire and it's various electors, or for some other reason?

Given the number of territorial changes that have occurred in and around Germany since the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire, what do historians consider Germany?

What sparked my interest in this is the historic city of Königsberg which was apart of the German Empire until after the Second World War when it was taken by the Soviets and renamed Kaliningrad. Many famous Germans such as Immanuel Kant were born there and I have a hard time considering it as "Russian". Just wondering what other people think.

Many European countries have very popular traditions around anise flavored liquors. Ouzo, Pernod, absinthe, sambuca, etc.

And while it's easy to find these liquors at shops and restaurants in the US, there really isn't much of a tradition or popular following for them. Certainly nothing like for scotch, vodka, tequila, etc

Why not? With almost all of Europe having such popular similar drinks, and so much of America's population decended from immigrants from this places, it seems like one of them, or collectively, or something inspired by them, would have taken a deeper hold.

I'm having a debate with a Danish man who is convinced that the Kalmar Union was a single kingdom whereas I argue it was a personal union between three individual kingdoms under one king who had their own power to govern what they wanted to do in the union.

Went to buy this book on Amazon, but found there are three different books with this same title by different authors - Andrew Roberts, Adam Zamoyski and Paul Johnson.

Can anyone point out differences between them and recommend which to get?

I realize this question is broad because I didn't specify a region or time period, so let's say Europe in the 10th century or so. If an army (or really any large group of riders) is marching or travelling somewhere, what speed would the horses usually be asked to keep? Walking seems like it would be really slow but I can't imagine they ask the horses to canter for long periods of time day after day.

Were there any attempts to bribe, intimidate, or otherwise force voters to take a certain position? Or were there any attempts to "stuff the ballot box" as it were?

My son is now obsessed with Frozen (he's three). And my mind noticed something out of match. The weapons mostly used in the film were long swords, kite shields and cross bows but they dressed like they lived in the late 1700s and had ships that appeared to be from that time period as well. I did some light digging and found out that Frozen takes place in 1840. So what gives? Why are they not armed rifles or at least muskets? Why is everything mixed up? They fight like knights but sail and dress like they are from just 20 years before the American civil war. Was this a intensional thing they did? Or their history is bad? Or am I missing something?

Before the holocaust, Eastern Europe had a much larger Jewish population compared to Western Europe.Why was this?

If that's too broad, I'd be most interested in lordship in the Early Modern Kingdoms of England and France.

My understanding is that lordship was an important political and social institution in Medieval Europe after the economic, political, and social simplification of the Roman Empire and the post-Roman Kingdoms in Late Antiquity. I have also heard that lordship was sidelined by emerging royal bureaucracies that facilitated political centralization from the 12th Century Renaissance on, but I have also heard that Early Modern historians have been coming to view Early Modern monarchs as having achieved said centralization through cooperation and coordination with the lords on a wider scale as opposed to conflict with and subordination of said lords using the new standing armies. How exactly, if at all, did the conception and techniques of lordship adapt to this changing environment, and what was the nature of the change in the relation between kings and their aristocracies?

This question came to my mind as I was learning a song for guitar today.

I live in Québec, which is in great majority French-speaking. Since we are kids, we use the Do Ré Mi Fa Sol La Si system of naming musical notes.

When I want to learn a song, specially an english song, the only sheets I found are noted with the english system (A B C D E F G), which is frustrating because the First note of the French system (Do) is the third of the English system (C).

Since when is it like that, and who decided that the first note for each system would be different? Why are there two systems and why is none solely used around the (western) world?

I hear time and time again that the average age in the middle ages was around 40-50. However, knowing averages, this number is drastically brought down due to the high infant mortality rate. So if we were to take a look into the middle ages, how old did people really live up to?

Hello, so before you crucify me for my question, give me some time to explain why I'm asking this question. I know that this idea wasn't part of any major schism but do we have some evidence that priests or theologians considered Judas to be holy? Now, why would the traitor to Jesus be holy? Well, his betrayal sent Jesus to the cross on which he died for all our sins thanks to Jesus - and furthermore, God is viewed as a maker of our destiny, therefore making destiny for Judas to betray Jesus.
I'm asking this question because I just heard this problem on Reddit and was really interested if those questions were asked in the past.

Although many use orienatlists as sources in this subreddit, the Middle Eastern people or Muslim historians in general tend to really hate orienatlists for 'altering their history'. They resort to contemporary historians.

Why is that and what role did orientalists play in Middle Eastern history?

I have been reading and just find polar opposite articles from each other and essays with notable citations and its all just so hard to find the truth. I know the concrete and truthful answer will never be known, but is there actually the most honest source out there? I read Zinn's pieces on him, and I read some articles stating he chopped up the journal and fabricated most of that, but yet I can't find CC's actual journal or any evidence of either side, its just too foggy, what type of person and what acts did he commit actually? Is there anywhere to find out the most accurate info about him?

The Indian Partition and the Foundation of Israel happened one after the other. Were these two events linked in the minds of participants or observers? Were there any attempts to use lessons learned in the Partition for the Palestine Mandate?

The Mayan have the Popol Vuh in which it records their history and culture. Do the Aztec and Inca have anything similar? Preferably something written first hand and by an Aztec or Inca.