From what I understand, the Maya are to the new world what the Greeks and Phoenicians are to the old world. So if the ancient Greeks and Phoenicians could colonise the Mediterranean, why didn't the ancient Maya do the same with the Carribbean ?

COVID-19 got me thinking....

In the context of the late Eastern Roman Empire, and later on the Italian maritime republics such as Genoa, what were medieval colonization practices among these powers like? Were they similar to the earliest colonies of the Americas, or did they have more in common with classical coloniae? Did they resemble colonies as we think of them today, or is it a term applied more out of convenience? How were they run, and what was their dynamic with locals?

I suppose, in truth, my question is asking - more broadly - what the colonization habits of the Byzantines and Italians were like. Seeing as these two groups had very distinctive political cultures, one bearing Roman imperial traditions and the other highly mercantile and republican, I struggle to think that their colonization habits would be all that similar to the feudal west. I'd be especially interested in trying to hear out what colonization of the Americas might've been like, had the Byzantines been in a situation to do such at all, or had the Tuscan expedition actually carried through, but since this is mere speculation I don't think it should be the main subject of the question.

Long question short: how did non-feudal Mediterranean countries, often relatively urbanized and with distinctive political cultures, do colonies?

Please link a source if possible, thank you for you help!

I'm having a hard time understanding the genesis of this interpretation of history. I think I have a basic understanding of how the Mongol's took over the country and commandeered the existing bureaucracy, but I don't understand why people believe the 'Yuan Dynasty' to be one in a long line of Chinese dynasties as opposed to a foreign take over.

I especially have difficulty reconciling this given 1) the rancor towards the Dzungar Khanate (a genocide) who traced their lineage to the Khans and 2) that other foreign conquerors who took over parts of China are not remembered fondly. Any recommendations for further reading would be greatly appreciated.

(I don't think this counts as current events but I'm assuming this belief is older than 20 years since I've heard it from older people.)

Or a dog, cow, or any other domestic animal, for that matter?

I've been reading up on non-sedentary peoples as of late due to the quarantine, and I came across a great deal of migrations during the 18-19th centuries. Either due to an escalation in warfare, or great power intervention/resettlement/genocide, most groups seem to have been laid low. But then I got to the Dungan Revolt.

While most of these events are understandably intense on the affected populations, the Wikipedia article for this cites a 20 million population decrease. So when taking about this and other events in China like Taiping, the numbers just seem absolutely incredible. The related events in China right now also bring extra attention to the question.

So would Qing China in 1850 have as diverse a linguistic population as Europe for instance? Or would it be largely the same region as we know today, just with a bit more color around the edges?

I’m writing a story that involves a nearsighted Illuminator of manuscripts in the 1175-ish time period. The reason given for this man becoming an artist is that he can’t see anything far off, basically—he can’t be a soldier, isn’t apt as a politician, etc. (He’s the son of minor Spanish nobility, and a secret Cathar to boot.) and his parents donated a lot of cash to a monastery. Medieval Art isn’t renowned for its realism, so I thought it was plausible as a character trait. (It’s one I share, and I always wondered what I’d have done in a time before glasses!)

How likely is this, for the time? How was extreme (-5.00 or below) nearsightedness viewed back then, when (if I were a man) it would’ve kept me back from a lot of careers?

And for that matter, what about women? Women were expected to perform certain duties in that era—how was visual impairment seen in women of high and low social class?

So I know that Romans had a very clear concept of what the objective of marriage was (procreate) and how the man had a dominant position with all of his liberties while the woman and children were to do as he said. But, Romans had no problem with a man fulfilling his desires outside of marriage with prostitutes, slaves, etc no matter the gender of the person being "submissive". There were exceptions to this idea, the biggest example being Nero with Sporus, but in this case perhaps Nero was able to evade the law because of his condition as emperor. Taking all of this into consideration, did Roman Law actually had something to say about gay marriage or was it just a grey area?

Forgive me if this not the correct way of asking.

I've always understood the crusades to be wars of reclaiming Holy Lands in Syria and Palestine to Christian rule, as directed by Pope Urban.

Recently, an acquaintance asserted that the crusades were an answer to Islamic territorial expansion, and that Western countries in Europe felt threatened by this expansion. Is there any historical precedence to this perspective?

Finland never had its own state before 1917 (the Russian grand dutchy of Finland could be argued, but it was still a part of Russia) but before being a part of Russia, Finland was part of Sweden for over 6 centuries. Given all of this, how did Finnish culture survive and how did the Finns remain their own distinct, unique people? Apart from bith the Swedes and Russians?

Hello historians of reddit! I’ve recently finished Dan Carlin’s “Blueprints for Armageddon” series and It left me wanting to learn more about Russian history, especially before and during WW1. Are there any interesting books or anything I can read related to this subject? I would really appreciate any suggestion. Thank you!

Does anyone one where can I get a physical copy of the 11 volumes? I can not find it on Amazon.

It seems that if you were purely wanting to test student knowledge, all test questions should be fill in the blank or short answer. Why did an easier format become so popular?

By burning, I mean light being produced by burning something, not necessarily gas. For example, some Ancient Greek astronomers thought that the sun was a burning ball of metal.

You probably know that, like Germany, Austria was divided into parts after WW2, and part was Soviet controlled. So why wasn’t there a west and east Austria/Vienna as well?