Like did The British Raj give a percentage of there income to Britain or the fact that India has a lot of cotton and because it was under imperial rule British factories could get cheaper prices?

So I'm a writer, and as a bit of a challenge to myself I'm working on a story involving a society where there are no available trees. In some cases there are alternative resources that can be used where wood would be (coal for fire, bone for handles), but one sticking point I keep hitting is the spear. Basically every society on Earth developed the spear at some point, but did any society ever develop spears made of something other than wood?

I was looking at the Introduction to African history course at SOAS and all the books recommended were by white men. Are there any good introductions to African history that are by actual Africans?

I have recently done some reading on the International Military Tribunal for the Far East as well as the individual participation of Japanese generals and officers in either sanctioning or initiating particularly brutal practices towards PoWs and civilians in occupied territories. However, I am curious to know whether this extreme harshness that the I.J.A. is largely remembered for today is unique to its conflicts from the 1930s onwards, or whether they had a history of poor treatment prisoners and subjects in previous wars.

I’m currently doing some reading on the Qing and China in general during the early modern period and one thing that I feel isn’t really explained enough about China is how they began their decline. Obvious the end began when the British began the opium wars opening China up and forcing the unequal treaties, but also from what I’ve read China was a self sufficient hegemon of East Asia, they limited trade because they had all they needed and had no need of western goods. What cause a century’s old dynasty like the Qing to be in a state during the middle of the 19th century where the best defense again British steam warships was wooden war junks (An analogy I’m using to represent Qing China as a whole seemingly being far behind the British in technology and strength).

Edit: also if you have any good sources for info on China, specifically of China and Chinese politics from the beginning of the 19th century up to the Second World War Id really appreciate it.

Hello AskHistorians, I've been doing research on my grandfather who flew in the Air Force during World War II, he was shot down and captured in Germany sometime in 1943, and he was held as a POW in the prison camp Stalag Luft I.

I am curious about the treatment of the prisoners there, and if there are any resources I can look into to find firsthand accounts of others who may have been held at the camp during the time my grandfather was there. Thank you in advance for any information you can provide

Can the bible be considered an historical source for Jesus? Is it a trusthworthy source?

I’m a newly retired citizen soldier born in Rome and I retired to a colonia in Eastern Iberia in 190 BC. Do I still vote? Do I have any civic involvement in the wider Roman state aside from that in my own colonia? If so, how would my votes be cast?

My understanding of this topic is extremely limited to what I learnt in early senior school and I saw a comment somewhere that caused me to question what I had been taught.

The version of history in England I was taught - that I now recognise was probably massively simplified - was that prior to the Black Death (so circa 1200 on) your average peasant was a serf who lived on a noble's land and was basically indentured to live there and work for the noble his or her whole life, a kind of slavery. The Black Death happened and as a result, the workforce reduced by huge numbers and suddenly the workers held much more economic power than before and were able to dictate wages and living conditions to a much greater extent than before and improved conditions and lives.

But my knowledge stops there and never really picks up. I'm aware that there were slaves in England later on, but it occurred to me that if your average Englishman was dictating his wages and rights, there must have been a requirement for cheap manual labour still, and this surely came from somewhere? Was this slavery - of 'foreigners', or Englishmen? Was the Black Death really as revolutionary as I was taught?

Thank you for any answers!

In one of those perennial "I read it on wikipedia" bits, the claim was made that:

States like Dagoma in northern Ghana, Nupe and the Yoruba kingdom of Oyo in Nigeria were very dependent on imports of horses, usually financed by the sale of slaves.

With the explanation that horses had to be imported because of difficulties breeding and losses to tsetse flies. This would be during the period of the slave trade with Europe and the Americas, so I'm curious if this was a "fourth angle" of the Triangular Trade. But is this an accurate assessment? Were human beings sold in part to finance equestrian pursuits in Europe?

Theoretically, they could influence politics greatly by deciding what and how to translate.

I've never felt entirely happy about the strong focus on opium in the histories I've read. How significant were attempts to introduce Christianity, and general disruption to life in the coastal provinces caused by the development of European trade? Did British and French interference exacerbate much older tensions within China?

Sorry if this is the wrong sub, not sure where else to put it.

I recently visited Museo Soumaya in Mexico City, which made me think: Are all these pieces the real deal? Someone could just destroy the piece easily..

So is everything in a museum a replica, or are there genuine pieces that are displayed inches away from public without glass in between us?

I keep seeing the film trope of the peasant covered in filth, apparently fine with it. However in my own life I am disgusted by unclean habits and smells, from myself and other people. Would a peasant be ok with it or are the “dirty peasant” tropes exaggerated?

I am very interested in learning the goings on of intellegence agencies. Historical or current is fine with me

Did they actually push through the forests and the large hills of the Ardennes “fabled” by the french impassible, or did they still go through the Ardennes but just by paved roads?

From what pictures I’ve seen the trees were quite old, so I don’t expect a Tank could blitzkrieg through there, and if it would it would give the French enough time to defend which is not what happened.

When I say focus I am referring to the tendency in the United States (possibly other countries?) to not only use England as an example in history books, but also focuses on them quite a bit in media. The focus is so much on England, France, and the fighting against Islam that people hardly know any nations besides the two. The "Holy Roman Empire" and the Eastern Roman Empire are glossed over at best. Is this because of the common English language and culture? Did the English leave more documentation than most other nations? I am guessing the former since the later is not really true.