The only instance I am familiar with is that case during the late 80s when Moscow appointed a man in charge of Kazahstan who was russian and not a kazah which caused mass rioting there and was one of the stepping stones of the collapse of the Union.

But I winder whether this problem was more of an exception or has been USSR finding itself in the same turbulent position about race and ethnicity through it existence as other nations did at its time?

The book I am writing takes place roughly around 1600 in a fantasy world similar to Asia and Eastern Europe, and I was wondering how long it should take for news of a death to go something around 500 miles.

Hi.

I've been interested in ancient greek history for a long time, and I wanted to read more about things like politics, the colonies, warfare, culture (basically every topic I can think of right now can be very interesting). I've been reading many things about religion, but I want to expand my readings and know what would an expert on the field recommend.

Maybe I should mention: I have some knowledge about the period (or periods, I don't know which one is a better term), although obviously I'm not any expert on the matter (which I aspire to be someday).

Also, something that i've been thinking since I saw someone remark it here: What is prefered to refer to the period between the Mycenaeans and Archaic Greece? I've always heard and read it as "Dark Ages", but someone talked about it as "Geometric Period". I'm a bit confused.

That's it. Sorry if I said something wrong or irrelevant, and also if I made any mistake in the language. And thanks to anyone who may respond.

Have a good day!

This has been troubling me as of late. I know red and white are templars, white and black are knights hospitaller, and white and green are order of St lazarus, but I haven't found any information on these mysterious crusaders and I'd really like to know.

It seems rather odd to me that there is such an important distinction that is classified through religious means. When writing, I always refer to groups of different opinions in the troubles as either Loyalists or Nationalists.

It seems there is a lot of Protestants that are Loyalists, and most Nationalists being Catholics. Why is there such a trend among the two religions?

I'm sure that there was some resistance to the Europeans after the initial resistance had been broken, either from former soldiers or now repressed workers and/or slaves, but were there any large scale revolts, which had at least theoretical change for success?

​

reposted because the original post was deleted due to my poor choice of words.

Hello, I am trying to find a debate that can help me answer the question above, but I am finding it quite difficult to source the information. Any links to referencing and information is greatly appreciated!

How soon after the atomic bombs being dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki did the consensus that Atomic bombs are much worse that conventional bombs and we should strive never to have to use them again arise?

Obviously treatment is rather unlikely to be of any actual worth (even in the mid-20th century it was basically bed rest and see if you died overnight), but what would they have tried to do for me?

I wanna learn some more history on certain groups. Mainly being the Maya, Vikings, Native Americans, and Mongols. Does anyone have any suggestions on what books are a good read?

Shakespeare wrote a bunch of historical dramas, such as Henry IV Part I, Henry IV Part II, Henry V, Richard II, etc. How historically accurate was Shakespearean history? Did Shakespeare do a good job of portraying these historical figures, or were his plays more like "Hollywood history"?

I learned that one of the largest slave owners in South Carolina was freed slave William Ellison, a black man. Being a wealthy slave owner in the American south but also a black man is an unusual thing to think of today, but do we know how William was perceived by other Americans during his time? How did American slaves view a black man becoming a slave owner? Did white slave owners respect him at all? Or did they see William as out of his place?

I know there are other threads about the Chinese Civil War, but I'm very interested in knowing why a split within the KMT happened almost immediately after SYS died.

Were Wang Jing-Wei and a faction of the KMT waiting patiently for SYS to die before they attempted a party takeover, or was this a total failure on the part of CKS to appease different interest groups within the party and within China? Did CKS have any chance to lead a unified KMT (long-term) if he'd decided against the Shanghai massacre?

Typically how long after a president's term do historians wait before starting to truly evaluate his time in office? How drastically can those views shift after time?

Did it actually work? Or, was it ultimately ineffective?

For example standardisation of laws and taxes and the end to wars between daimyo

In the battle of Carrhae Crassus's son, Publius, was killed in a disastrous cavalry charge and his head dangled in front of the rest of the Roman army on the end of a Parthian spear which had a very bad effect on their morale. How would people have been able to recognize that this was actually Publius considering the distance and possible damage the head suffered? Would soldiers even in an army of tens of thousands have been familiar with their commanders appearances such that they could recognize them easily? Was there anything stopping the enemy from finding some random corpse and pretending it was a crucial commander they were showing off as having been killed to sow confusion and loss of heart?

This is the account given in the book:

"In 1825, Czar Nicholas I, ascended the throne of Russia. A rebellion immediately broke out, led by liberals demanding that the country modernise — that its industries and civil structures catch up with the rest of Europe.

Brutally crushing this rebellion (the Decemberist Uprising), Nicholas I sentenced one of its leaders, Kondraty Ryleyev, to death. On the day of the execution, Ryleyev stood on the gallows, the noose around his neck. The trapdoor opened...but as Ryleyev dangled, the rope broke, dashing him to the ground.

At the time, events like this were considered signs of providence or heavenly will, and a man saved from execution this way was usually pardoned. As Ryleyev got to his feet, bruised and dirtied but believing his neck had been saved, he called out to the crowd, “You see, in Russia they don’t know how to do anything properly, not even how to make rope!”

A mesenger immediately went to the Winter Palace with news of the failed hanging. Vexed by this disappointing turnabout, Nicholas I nevertheless began to sign the pardon.

But then: “Did Ryleyev say anything after this miracle?” the Czar asked the messenger. “Sire,” the messenger replied, “he said in Russia they don’t even know how to make rope”. “In that case”, said the Czar, “let us prove the contrary”, and he tore up the pardon. The next day Ryleyev was hanged again. This time the rope did not break."

Did this actually happen how it's recounted in the book, or is this fiction to prove a point?