Hi folks! I'm currently writing a paper on the nature of Italian journalism during the interwar years. I'm still starting out, so I'm just trying to get a general idea of how things were like. I'd love to know about any books relevant to the topic (so stuff about interwar Italian propaganda in general)

So, basically from what I've heard, some Filipino datus sold some land to Malaysia. Is it true that the Philippines actually had the land in northern Malaysia?

I know this is one of the most worn-out historical discussions of all time, and it's probably one of the most disliked. The whole topic is plagued with Lost Causers, apologists, myths, and so on. I am, however, from the American Southeast, and I love reading as much history as I can get my hands on, so this subject is by far one of my favorites to read about. Because of where I was brought up, my perception is no doubt biased, so I will refrain from imposing my bias as best as I can.

The most common and accepted argument is that the Civil War was fought over the issue of slavery. A less accepted answer is states rights, which is often met with the retort "a state's right to own slaves". For a long time this is what I believed, as it was widely taught in public schools where I live. I acknowledge that the Civil War was fought over slavery just because it is what is most accepted by the population.

The issue surrounding slavery was most certainly the driving force behind secession. I seem to recall reading documents written by the state governments themselves that the threat of abolition was one of, if not the main reason they seceded.

But the secession of the southern states and the outbreak of war are different, at least as far as I understand it.

I've never came across anything that even vaguely suggests Federal armies were being raised to free slaves in the Southern states. This is even more far-fetched considering slave states were still in the Union (although I am aware Lincoln could not afford to abolish slavery in these critically important border states so early in the war). Similarly, there's nothing suggesting the Confederacy mobilized her armies to protect against Federal attempts to free slaves.

My choice book on the subject has been Battle Cry of Freedom, by James McPherson. After reading through the first few chapters I began to formulate a new perspective on why the Civil War was being fought. The Federal government refused to acknowledge the supposed 'Confederate States of America', and refused to hand over assets and garrisons. Although the South wanted to refrain from attacking, so-called 'fire-eaters' urged an attack on Fort Sumter against Beauregard's orders. This hostile action sparked conflict, prompting Abraham Lincoln to raise forces with which to invade the South.

As for why the Civil War was fought, it appears to me that Abraham Lincoln mobilized his forces to subdue the southern states and bring them back into the Union. The Confederacy, on the other hand, was fighting to prevent that. Neither belligerent seemed to have war goals concerning slavery.

President Lincoln brought abolition to the table after Gettysburg in 1863, and afterwards freeing slaves did become a Federal military objective. But the war had started nearly two years prior, in 1861, for completely unrelated reasons. It doesn't seem logical to claim the Civil War started over an issue that only became a military objective midway through the conflict.

I want to apologize if my post seems biased; I am no historian, nor an expert. Perhaps I have dissected the topic to fit my own perspectives - a futile attempt to cut slavery out of the picture. From a Historian's point of view, why did the American Civil War start, what sparked open conflict, and what prompted the Union and Confederate armies to attack each other?

I'm aware from reading about the life of the religious reformers Hōnen and Shinran that in the Kamakura period at least, tonsure was a viable way for the sons of falling houses to avoid appearing threatening to enemy nobles. However, in the Sengoku period the struggles seem much more vicious and respect for religious institutions was low. Was there then no alternative but "win or die"?

Like in the movies, both the parties go charging at one another with their swords and shields and horses and whatnot with both the Kings right at the front. This does not seem practical at all. How did these wars actually happen? As in what were the formations of these battles.. What were some of the rules or principals of these wars, if any.. That a layman would not know.

Everyone knows CC sailed the ocean blue in 1492 and he was able to do so because he "convinced QI and KF".

What exactly did he say that convinced them?

The heart of my question is in the title, but to provide a little info on what time periods I'm thinking of in particular here's some context;

I was listening to a podcast(Hardcore History) about the sacking of Carthage by Scipio Africanus of Rome. I was shocked to hear the details of how exactly it went down. I mean I've heard about cities being sacked but something about this one was particularly horrific. Polybius's descriptions of the dead and half dead being dragged into ditches. The chaos of buildings burning, people throwing themselves from roofs to keep from the brutality, etc. I'm sure there was also a great degree of sexual violence that went down as well. The most surprising thing to me was that it was said to have took 6 days to destroy. And still-- at the end 10,000 remaining citizens of Carthage were given some mercy and let out the gates. I can only imagine the horror of hiding for six days while everything you know and love is destroyed.

So what did people think of all this horror? Did common citizens and the soldiers who went to war have differing views? How about things like rape-- would a woman seeing her husband off to war tell him to remain chaste, or would she excuse these things as acts of war? And were people judged for their excesses during war-- for example if so and so had a penchant for rape or torture in war, would people look at them differently during peacetime?

BONUS QUESTION, if you have the time: I also know that at that time soldiers in the Roman army were landowners, who would have returned to their farms, family, and normal lives when the war was over.

One of the strangest things to me was hearing about these Romans back at home talking about honor and virtues such as that. They even seemed positively charitable and kind at times. It struck me as odd to think that these men weren't extremely calloused after committing holocausts of entire populations. I suppose I think of the example of the battle-hardened WWII vets who couldn't adjust back to normal civilian life after, who carried the harshness of war on their shoulders permanently. I would imagine killing men, women, and children for 6 days straight would have a similar effect on people. So what were these men like after coming back from war? Did they really just switch back to normal, sometimes kind men fit for civilian life? Or would they carry a harsh streak and a callousness towards civilian affairs?

I understand that the Apartheid system divided South Africa into four racial groups: "Black", "White", "Coloured", and "Indian". While the vast majority of Apartheid coverage focused on the plight of the majority black population, what was life like for the Indian population during South Africa's Apartheid years?

I know this is hyper niche, so please bear with me- I suppose this question is for the historian well versed with Japan. I know that hedonism is nothing new when it comes to Japanese culture but I was wondering, can anyone shed light on this odd influx of hentai games that came into fruition with the PC98 and Sharp X68000? I would love to know if anyone has knowledge on why there are so many of them on these platforms and what they say about Japan as a society during this era (or if there is a revelation to be said about Japanese society as a whole concerning this subject)?

It seems interwoven in history and Greek stories and poems, but where did it begin? Was there one guy who sat down and write about it first? Did he just reference it and people built on it, or was it a very fleshed out mythos to begin with?

I can understand a lot of wars back before the formation of nation-states/feudalism having a lot of kin vs kin and the reason why it isn't really covered. These cadet branches kinda hated each other.

Later, after feudalism, we see the start of nation-states and I can imagine officers during the Austro-Prussian Wars/Wars of German Unification knowing each other. I can also see the Russian Revolution also have families split up. We don't hear this aspect of other Civil Wars, while it's played up during the American Civil War.

We all read how sad and how much the generals were when they realised they were fighting old friends. I assume that other Civil Wars must have their stories like this.

I’ve read that the Greek philosophers that we know of as the “fathers of philosophy” (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, etc.) actually got many of their ideas from the Ancient Egyptians. How much truth is there to that?

The BBC documentary 'The Greatest Tomb on Earth: Secrets of Ancient China' claims that Qin sculptors weren't capable of creating the terracotta army or the more recently excavated acrobat sculptures, and argues that Greek experts were likely present to teach the local craftsmen the necessary techniques.

Are these claims as conclusive and irrefutable as the documentary suggests? And can anyone comment on how difficult it would really have been for Chinese sculptors of the time to create these works without outside help? As a lay person in both history and sculpture, the idea that lifelike sculptures would be impossible to create just because prior to that time the dominant form of sculpture in the region were small and heavily stylized figures seems absurd.

I am not a historian by any means and I’m so appreciative to have this resource to ask a question like this. I recently received my MFA and much of my work involves investigating forms and functions of ritual, mythic, and liturgical instruments throughout the history of human culture. I am looking for text resources about Gobekli Tepe , basically just looking for books on Amazon, but it seems like a lot of the literature available is overly speculative and mystical. While the theories these books seem to have their own place in my work, I am interested in finding some more scholarly texts about the subject. Any help is greatly appreciated, thanks!

I’ve always heard of the 7 wonders of the ancient world, but this one I come to find out is actually debated amount many historians. What do you guys think?