In my city we have a festival every late summer/fall where pavilions are set up for different cultures to serve their food and share traditional customs, music, etc.
Anyways, it got me wondering about what's presented at the Mexican pavilion, what degree of it has roots in pre-colonial history? I imagine many food customs are pre-colonial as these are dictated by what can grow where. Then again, maybe they Spanish introduced certain crops that became staples? What of the music and dances, how heavily are these influenced by Spanish culture?

I'm sure a proper answer requires a whole book worth of discussion, so perhaps someone could offer some highlights. I guess I'd be happy with a key example or two of what traditions were (or weren't) greatly influence/overhauled, and how.

Hello. I wonder if there are any runestones or even just rune carvings in Finland. It seems to me like vikings came to finland a lot to raid and trade. Maybe some stayed and wrote runes?

Why does these pikemen only arrive in late medieval era? these phalanx-like formations were very effective against cavalry, so why did earlier Medieval nobility not turn their peasant levies as these soldiers or at least, hire mercenaries?

When talking about the last czar, I see a lot of sympathy for his family. Whether it be on the last czar on Netflix or Podcasters like Mike Duncan and Dan Carlin. They portray a family that actually loved each other, and that Nicholas would rather be with his family than be the czar of Russia.

But the czar would kill his own citizens. Such as bloody Sunday, punitive campaigns, anti Jewish pogroms. He clearly did not care about the families he ruined. So why is there a lot of focus on the last czars family? Is it because the orthodox church labeled them as martyrs in 1981? Did people always feel bad for the family or is it a recent thing?

Marco polo is basically the Christopher Columbus of Asia, but were there other europeans that recorded their travels in Asia?

The U.S. Constitution never established a presidential cabinet—the delegates to the Constitutional Convention explicitly rejected the idea. So how did George Washington create one of the most powerful bodies in the federal government?

On November 26, 1791, George Washington convened his department secretaries—Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, Henry Knox, and Edmund Randolph—for the first cabinet meeting. Why did he wait two and a half years into his presidency to call his cabinet? Because the U.S. Constitution did not create or provide for such a body. Washington was on his own.

Faced with diplomatic crises, domestic insurrections, and constitutional challenges—and finding congressional help lacking—Washington decided he needed a group of advisors he could turn to. He modeled his new cabinet on the councils of war he had led as commander of the Continental Army. In the early days, the cabinet served at the president’s pleasure. Washington tinkered with its structure throughout his administration, at times calling regular meetings, at other times preferring written advice and individual discussions.

The Cabinet reveals the far-reaching consequences of Washington’s choice. The tensions in the cabinet between Hamilton and Jefferson heightened partisanship and contributed to the development of the first party system. And as Washington faced an increasingly recalcitrant Congress, he came to treat the cabinet as a private advisory body to summon as needed, greatly expanding the role of the president and the executive branch.

Hello, I am writing a story set in an alternate history 1949 Japan, where the political change to democracy did not change the political landscape as much as it did in this world due to a combination of mistakes done in the US occupation of Japan, leading to the Emperor's Family's Political party (Which I assume isn't a real thing in this world) having nearly complete control of the government.

Although the story is alternate history, I feel like the closer I can get to and understand the real world history of that era, the more realistic I can make it.

With that in mind, comes the most important sub-question: What part of Japan would be most likely to elect someone who's in an opposition party? I am guessing it would have something to do with wherever people were the least on board with the Emperor's plans, but I don't know where that would be.

I've been told by a relative that autistic people are killed off during the Nazi regime. However, I am trying to fact-check this statement, and I am planning to write a novel set in WWII German-occupied territories, so I would like to know how the Nazis viewed autistic people. In addition, was autism actually discovered back then? Getting my facts wrong would offend a large number of readers.

Note -: This is a repeat question that I asked a few weeks back. But I didn't get any answer. So I am reposting it.

I am from India and Emperor Ashoka Maurya is a known name here. Our national emblem comes from the Ashoka Pillars at Lion Capital found in Sarnath.

But I haven't found any conclusive, solid proof that Ashoka existed.

The only proof we have about him and his life story comes from the carvings on the stones in Greek language in which he depicts himself by another name and calls himself a benevolent ruler. Another source is the Buddhist texts which were written by monks centuries after his death and depict him in an exaggerated manner as a violent ruler who suddenly turned peaceful and adopted Buddhism and spread it across his whole empire. Both these sources don't match in their depictions of Ashoka.

These sources are unreliable and cannot be trusted to provide an accurate representation of a ruler who has been said to rule the biggest unified empire in India.

Also, despite being India's biggest ruler, he was forgotten for centuries and discovered again during the British Rule in India. The British historians at that time were infamous for distorting the Indian history.

We haven't found any palace or places of official work belonging to Ashoka's time except for the Sanchi Stupa, which is strange for an emperor of his power and stature.

Also, we haven't found any independent written account of the Kalinga War except in the Buddhist texts, which by today's geography, would be located in the state of Orissa. It was the only war that he fought and turned from a Hindu to a Buddhist after that. We haven't found any weapons or equipments that were used in the war.

My question is, did Emperor Ashoka really exist or is he some myth fabricated from some poor, unreliable and unrelated sources by Buddhists as a figurehead of a peaceful, powerful Buddhist empire?

Hello everyone,

while writing my thesis, i found that i could not find any overview or catalogue which states the epigraphic sources found in Tanagra (Boeotia, Central Greece) during Roman occupation. Claus-Slaby only resulted in 2 hits, while Heidelberg did not even show any hits. Any suggestions are welcome!

It seems like they could replenish their army quite effectively. There are battles/sieges, even minor ones, where the ottomans lost 20.000+ soldiers, yet a few years later are able to field armies in the ~100k range.

Was it possible because of a large population to recruit from? Did they simply have a much larger army (sipahis, janissaries, etc...all included) than other countries and could afford keeping reserves in areas far away from the front?

According to to historian Edward Gibbon

The more scandalous charges were suppressed; the vicar of Christ was accused only of piracy, rape, sodomy, murder and incest

Was there any merit to this accusations or was the trial politically motivated? If legit, were there any actual more severe accusations that were not included in the trial? Were such practices common of popes in this era?

With current PM Boris Johnson being admitted into intensive care this question has to have crossed people’s minds. Has any Prime Minister ever died? What was the fallout?

I was in history class and the topic came up, and everyone agreed that it was basically the Church’s goal to keep everyone uneducated so that they would have total control. At first I didn’t think anything of it, but on the way home I questioned why I always just accepted this as true. It‘s the kind of blanket statement that sounds like propaganda. The reason I thought this was because, I don’t know very much about medieval history, but I do know that:

•Most people back then couldn’t read anyway and had no use for formal education

•The schools that did exist were started/run by the Catholic Church

•Most scientific advancements that took place during that time were made by people who either worked for the Church or were educated by them, at least I’m pretty sure this is the case

I figure I could be overthinking this, but it made me wonder if this whole idea is just pop history.

I am doing some writing right now and am wanting to make sure I keep things accurate. If a soldier was KIA, would their equipment be collected and distributed to replacements? I was specifically wondering about the US but any information would be nice!

Were Asian Americans Segregated and considered "Coloured" in the 1950's to 60's?

Let's say I'm a middle aged civilian in a country other than the US or Japan. Maybe Australia. Would this be something people discuss at work? Would it be on the newspaper? Would this stay in the news cycle or would it be overshadowed?

Besides the caliphates of course, I’ve seen many maps of major empires that expanded around, but never into the Arabian peninsula. Rome, Byzantium, the Ottomans, and the British for example.

I've been reading up on the Austrian army during the age of blackpowder (the Seven Years War/Napoleonic Period) and some things I'm wondering about.

1. Was there a buying of commissions of any type as oft associated with the Britsh Army.

2. There seems to have been two "colonels" for a regiment the ceremonial colonel and the active one. Am I right in that observation and what did the rank structure even actually look like?

3. Starting on the regiment how many people would be in say your average regiment of the line of foot. I read that around 5000+ is normal but that seems high for what would be termed a regiment.

4. How would wider armies be organised? I think that the Corp wouldn't become popular until Napoleon so regiment < brigade < division < army?

Thanks in advance.