Hi. I am someone interested in the taiping rebellion and my question for someone knowledgeable on this subjects was whether or not such an event would happen or if Hong Xiuquan really did lead a massive civil war. I understand China was weakened as a result of the opium wars but do not know how discontent the people of China were.

Not sure how to word this properly but essentially during the Yuan and Qing dynasty, was it considered Mongol and Manchu empires, or a Chinese empire.

And did they see themselves as Chinese?

I know the story of Edward Bernays organizing a parade celebrating feminism (calling cigarettes 'freedom torches'), but I want to know more.

How would taking a castle/town differ in tactics from say the middle of the 100 years war in 1405 than taking a town/castle in the Dutch revolt in 1590's or even during the 30 years war. I figure the wide spread use of blackpowder weapons would have some effect on it, but I feel like Ladders and breaking down the front door was still the best way to take a fortified building pretty much no matter what time period your in.

I'm a graduate student in history and currently struggling with mandatory coursework on the philosophy of history. I'm struggling to link what people have previously said about history, to how I study history now. While some groups are clearly obvious how their philosophy impacts their understanding of history, (Marx, Feminist, and Annales, for example), there are other debates that seem to be stuck in semantics (Butterfield vs Berlin with morality in history and historical determinism).

Do you have any favorite philosopher's of history? How have they impacted your view of history? Is your current study of history influenced by any particular philosophical discipline? I really want to love this like I have loved other parts of my history studies, but I'm spinning my wheels.

If I understand correctly, Franco's regime incorporated different groups with a wide range of ideological views - fascists, conservatives, monarchists, the Catholic Church etc. But what were his own views?

Simon Bolivar formed gran Colombia after liberating Spanish colonies in South America. But Its hard for me to find reasons why this fell apart. Any idea as to why this collapsed in 1831?

I just watched Vikings (I know, late to the party) and realised, that in the first few battles they where heavily outnumbered, at least 2:1 and still won a battle with minimal casualties.

Also the film 300 came to my mind and other films of historic battles and kingdoms. In most of these films/shows the main faction seems to win purely by being more skilled then the others, having better fighting strategies and tactics, leaving the enemy army in fear and mostly make them look “inferior”. Or they just have way better gear that makes them kind of invincible.

Is that a realistic portraiture of how battles where decided back in the good ol’ times, where you fought head to head or is this “artistic freedom”?

While perhaps not the most important thing in warfare, a large cultural part of war is the music soldiers sing during the conflicts. For example during the Vietnam War there were songs such as Fortunate Son, Hello Vietnam, House of the Rising Sun. Before that in the American Civil War such songs may have been Batte Hymn of the Republic, Yellow Rose of Texas, or Dixie. I am curious as to what songs were sung during the Mexican-American War by soldiers of both sides, Mexican songs and American songs alike. These could be professional marches played by military bands or folk songs soldiers may have played at camp. Any information on the subject would be much appreciated.

I am sorry if this topic is not suitable here

Had a discussion about a mythology regarding a mythological story with my dad. To which my dad responded with this:-

"Mythology was one of the ways people at past used to keep tabs on the historical events. There was no need for them to maintain such a 'factually correct' record. The present form of 'History' as we know is mostly an 'western' way of recording their pasts, which is mostly incompatible with the history."

There has been multiple mythological stories from various cultures like Indian epics of Mahabharata, Ramayana Greek epics like Odyssey, etc. Could there be some truth in those books?

There's a lot of stuff available to read about the LBA collapse, but as far as I know there was another mini-collapse at around 2100 BC, coinciding with the end of the Old Kingdom in Egypt, the Akkadian Empire, and contemporaneous with the beginning of the decline of the Indus civilisation.

I assume there's less info because there are fewer sources, but I wondered if anyone had some good textbooks or such that talk about this period and the continuity into the MBA. All I can get from looking online is that it coincides with the 4.2 kya Bond event.

I've always wondered how the men who wrote and signed off on the idea that "all men are created equal" justified their treatment of certain groups while also holding that belief.

In their minds were "men" just understood to be "white men" only? Was there any discussion on it? Did they consider they way women were treated to be "equal" just different? The idea that slavery was wrong was certainly common at that point, is there any evidence that any one saw the phrase "all men are created equal" as aspirational? That one day "men" would actually include black men? And where do non-land owning white men fit in this? Were they considered equal?

Also, I've been taught our democracy was based on the ideas of philosophers like Locke and Rousseau. Were there any philosophical discussions at the time about the treatment of blacks and women? Did any philosophers attempt to justify unequal treatment? Did the famous ones just ignore it (which is the impression i get)?

Hi guys so I’m just reading Wolf Hall, and researching Thomas Cromwell at the moment and I just had a thought. When Henry wanted his divorce from Catherine of Aragon, He had Cromwell and other Minister form the Church of England. Catherine was a devoted Catholic and so was her daughter.

So when Henry died, and Mary was crowned Queen, why didn’t she reinstate Catholicism. Did she try and fail or did she see no point. CoE was still a relatively new religion.

If I’ve got facts wrong or have said stuff of fiction please correct me. Thanks

Specifically looking for any existing syllabi or lists of books that were often taught.

In the first crusade they went to Constantinople and then attacked nicea first before attacking Jerusalem but why would they go to those two cities if they’re not considered part of the holy land?

I've been wondering lately about the idea of the "adventurer" as we've come to know it in pop culture. Someone who leads a life of wandering in search of riches/fame/excitement seems like a reasonable thing to have existed at some point, but I don't have any knowledge of an era or locale where that would have actually happened. Does anyone here know if this "adventurer" trope ever had a basis in fact?

You know the type; young thrill seekers accepting quests, roving the lands, seeking wealth, glory, and fame, saving damsels in distress, searching for hidden treasures, all that jazz.

This is something that seems odd to me. When the Allies landed in Normandy on D-Day and the Germans became aware of what was going on, why didn't the Germans sortie their entire fleet to attack the landing forces and supporting fleet stationed off the coast of Normandy?