I've been looking for answers of the most mind-boggling story of history. Some says that the complexity of the system led to its collapse, but some explained the annihilation of these civilization by the arrival of sea people, the thing that I would hardly accept. Does anyone have an explanation of this mastery?

Such as the New Zealand people of the time.

Hey, im trying to find some book thats as unbiased as possible covering balkan history

I read a few pages on why they stopped using them that's easy to find but can't find anything on what the next and superior defense was and I was curious.

Was their contribution to the war "vital"? Could we say that if Italy would have stayed neutral, the outcome of the war wouldn't have changed? Was Italy more of a burden in the war?

Members of the Khmer Rouge military, many top figures are allowed to roam around, even becoming apart of Cambodia’s government today, their genocide killed 1.5-3 million people, the most recent genocide in our modern history. Pol pot seemed to have been captured in ‘93 and died in ‘98 as a free man.

In many paintings, statues and even in the comic Asterix the Gauls are often depicted with helmets with little wings. Is this based in reality?

As per title. Stalin invaded some 16 days after Hitler’s entry into Poland. Why did he not invade at the same time?

Hey, so I’m looking for any kind of information related to British exploration/expeditions in Africa in either the 1840’s or 1880’s/90’s. Any piece of info could help, hehe. Also any answers to the following questions could help:

How did funding expeditions work in Britain?

Were there any incidents regarding expeditions besides diseases such as Malaria?

How did relations between expeditions and African tribes or nations, I guess sometimes, work? Ok there were some treaties and stuff focused on trade, but was there a translator? Where did translators come from?

How did expeditions work essentially, like do they camp in certain areas? What do they eat? How do they settle down for a break?

Even today roughly a third of British lands remains in the hands of the traditional aristocracy, but the idea of some random earl accumulating enough personal influence and resources to, via threat of violence, publicly challenge, coerce or destabilize central authority is a laughable scenario at best and a frightening but futile one at worst. Furthermore, it's hard to imagine that modern peer with a grudge and a desire for personal gain in a political sense would be better off choosing to violently destabilize the political order vs. writing a couple ranty books and hoping for a position in the cabinet. When did this become the case? After the Stuarts and the increase of Parliamentary authority that came with William of Orange?

in my view it's basically a bunch of nonsense cause it essentially insinuates that gays and homosexuality didn't exist and came into being in the 1860s and is some sort of modern phenomenon. seems as if it basically a cleansing of gays from the history books

What major, seismic changes occurred with the Qin that set it apart from the dynasties that had come before it? The Zhou already had the concept of the Mandate of Heaven and the early Chinese bureaucracy, so what shifted so much with the Qin that their ascension marks a new era?

It seems like both oddly but I’d like to hear from people more read in than myself.

Any useful book recommendations on this subject would be appreciated.