The Question: Can a Combination of Ming's Collapse and the Imjin War be Reasonably Said to Have Started an Asian Dark Age?

Context: I am trying to understand why, when Europeans contacted Japan, Korea and China in the 16th century East Asia had military superiority but by the 1850s, all three East Asian countries had gotten weaker than they had been 300 years before.

I'm basing this idea on 19th century Korean scholars, who say that Korea's "Closed Country Policy" was implemented on the logic that Japan had proven itself barbaric in the Imjin War and that the fall of Ming to the Manchus meant China was also barbarian - hence Korea had to protect the last sliver of civilization in the entire world. The Japanese seem to have done something similar in the early-mid Tokugawa. China I'm least certain on, but the stuff going on with Cixi seems to indicate a similar withdrawal into ultra-conservatism and isolationism.

Could American Civil war be avoided if the North abolitionist ideas weren't so aggressive and the South more willing to compromise?

Obviously we can never truly know another person's innermost thoughts and motivations, but based on the geopolitical situation in which Arnold decided to commit defection, the debates going on about America's future at the time, and his own (scant) public comments on the matter, is it possible to know what he was ultimately hoping for if everything went according to plan?

Was it just a case of "give me money and power, everything else be damned"? Or did he actually have some sort of vision for both the country and himself if the Empire emerged victorious? He couldn't have reasonably hoped to go down as a hero considering that his original plan to ingratiate himself to the British was especially dishonourable (surrendering a fort he was entrusted to defend), and after it failed he basically commanded massacres against American people, including in his native Connecticut.

I know that the injustices (real or imagined) he suffered from the Continental Congress were a big factor in his decision, but even if indignation clouded his judgment, he must have had some ideal scenario for what his betrayal would lead to. Was he hoping that the Empire would "learn from its mistakes" and return liberties to the Colonies, thus giving him an opportunity to distort history and make himself look like someone who "fought against tyranny and the folly of revolution at once" or some crap like that?

Or did he really have no long-term goal beyond "I want a pension and a commission".

I recently traveled to Cambodia and was shocked by the sheer horror of what the Khmer Rouge did to their people. I was also shocked to hear that the United States played absolutely no role in their downfall. Here's my question:

Did the United States know what was going on in Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge's human rights abuses? Also, why didn't the United States overthrow the Khmer Rouge?

I actually wrote Jimmy Carter a letter asking these questions nearly two months ago, but no response yet (I'm not anticipating one).

Additional question: When did Irish Americans start wanting to wear an Irish tartan and why? Or anyone outside of Scottish communities?

They are slightly unrelated, but they are the two points in my research for work where I've run into a lot of confusion. At least, they're the two points where I've experienced a lot of confusion between historical facts with sources and opinion pieces, or opinion pieces about those sources and their validity. Feels like there are a lot of cultural sensitivities going on.

Thank you in advance. I have a lot of respect for this community, and my partner sings your praises daily.

[Edit 1 clarification, edit 2 spelling]

I've always kind of wondered this, but when and why did Spain decline in power and influence so much. Up until around the 1600s Spain was one of, if not the, wealthiest, most powerful, and most influential countries in the world. But since then it's been something of a footnote. The Spanish-American war barely is covered in school and Franco's Spain is something of a side note to the rest of what's going on at the time. And today, you hardly hear anything about Spain. France, Britain and Germany seem to have all the influence in Europe.

I should note that I am American, so maybe Spanish history is more well known outside. But here, after the defeat of the Spanish Armada, Spain's contribution to world history seems to be shrugged off

Hello there!

I'm currently doing a research paper about the battle of Alesia. One of the parts I'll be discussing will be the Roman (and Celtic) equipment during this battle. I've already looked through Adrian's Goldworthy's book "The Complete Roman Army", but I can't seem to find a detailed chapter on the equipment of the various types of Roman soldiers.

Does anyone know more about this subject, or where I could find more about it?

Thanks in advance.

I feel like many descriptions of Incan government draw implicit or explicit comparisons to the Soviet Union: forced deportations of whole communities, a state heavily intervening in the economy and especially food redistribution, even a sort of pan-nationalism that theoretically tolerated cultural diversity as long as loyalty to the central regime was maintained.

Is this, as I suspect, just a quirk of Cold War-era historiography? Are the comparisons useful at all? Am I seeing something that's not even there?

Although I've seen alot of magic in "medieval" fantasy I always wondered what magic was actually like in the dark ages. I've tried to look around for some good books but I didn't find much of anything beyond modern day "dark pagan/wicca" books.

So I've been wondering if any of you historians know of good books or sources that give a good introduction into the subject. Maybe analyses of how it was viewed, or primary and secondary sources regarding witchcraft or old astrology (Maybe an spellbook or a document about the legality of witchcraft in certain areas).

Hello all, I know this subreddit only answers more specific questions, so if this does t belong I’ll take it down. My father was a US paratrooper from 1983-?, but my question is what sort of, if any, American units were sent into Honduras? It was my understanding that Central Intelligence was backing rebel groups against the government there, and not actually sending soldiers into combat, just operatives and a few spooks. He says he’s been to Honduras, the Jungle Bush, and the capital city, So is he full of shit or is there a chance he was actually there?

I ran across the term "lying too" in reference to when a ship at sea was dealing with a storm in the early 1820's. Can anyone define that for me? Thanks much

I'm imagining some sort of "sea caravans" with many boats sailing from modern day Ecuador and sticking close to the coast until they arrived... where?, in modern day Michoacán?, Oaxaca?, somewhere farther south?

And once there... how did they communicate?, were there quechua translators in mexico?, or did nahuatl translators accompained the traders?. Also, I've heard that people in Mexico bought mostly copper from the southamericans but, what did the south americans buy?

Recently read about how France helped Israel develop its nuclear program during the late 50s, early 60s. Why did France do this?

I know there were recorded instances os interfaith affairs and marriages among the peasantry, but were there any cases of interfaith marriages among the nobility? If so, how common were they?

Edit: They probably were frequent between Catholic and Orthodoxes, but what about Christians and Muslims?

How many of you have read Nicholas Thomas' The Extraordinary Voyages of Captain James Cook and Anne Salmond's Trial of the Cannibal Dog: Captain Cook in the South Seas? I have only read the latter, while the former is on my reading list for this year. I am curious to see your comparisons and opinions on the two books and which is the most laudable account Captain James Cook and his voyages.

Other books on Captain James Cook I have read include:

- Empire, Barbarism & Civilization: William Hodges, Captain Cook and the Return to the Pacific by Harriet Guest.

- Aphrodite's Island: The European Discovery of Tahiti by Anne Salmond

- Explorations and Reassessments by Glyndwr Williams

The question seems a little odd, but it occurred to me:

There are a lot of historical references to French peasants - in medieval times, in pre-modern times, during the Revolution, etc. But nowadays you never hear anyone describing anyone in France as a peasant. Why? There are still a lot of rural farmers in France. Presumably some of them are still poor. Why are they not peasants?

I ask especially because it's not like the word 'peasant' has fallen entirely out of use. Go to any academic literature on development in poor countries and you'll find references to Nepali peasants, Cambodian peasants, Senegalese peasants, etc. But no French peasants.

So when did Western historians stop describing poor rural folks in France (and Western Europe generally) as peasants? Why? How has the meaning of the word changed over the years?

Poorly worded, but i have a friend who says only 400,000 jews maximum have been exterminated. What can i say to that? Im not that educated but see a general consensus that its in the millions

Edit: thanks for your guys' comments.. ill be spending a while reading them

There were people in North America by 10,000 BC, but when people talk about ancient civilizations, they start around 4000 BC in the middle east with the Sumerians. What were other cultures like in that time period or earlier? Were there any that rivaled the Sumerians, maybe in mainland Africa or eastern Asia, or the Americas?