Back in the day when I took graduate courses in university (around 2010ish) my teachers would tell me that Kenneth Pomeranz's book, aptly named after the very topic it covered, was more or less their 'go-to' reference book when it came to answering the "big question". Now while I found his work quite convincing back then I just came across it once more by chance and I realised it's now been 20 years since it was first released. Would my teachers' claims still hold up today (or did they in fact hold up back then in the first place)?

I found an article who affirm that between 1000 and 1850 at least 400 millions indian die during the Islamic period of the country the population dropping from 600 millions to 200 millions.

This article is certainly not neutral but I dont know if it tell the truth. Could someone answer me thanks !

I sometimes hear that European observers were present to some extent during the Civil War to see what was going on and "take notes" so to speak. And that they were eager to do so because the Civil War included a lot of new technology that hadn't been applied to European warfare on a large scale (telegraphs, railroads, and others).

Is there any truth to all of this?

The genesis of my question was an argument over whether 1917 was an accurate depiction of war and from those who fought within it. The other guy thinks that World War I wasn't really all that different from other wars and that it wasn't until after World War II that some of the 'modern' sense of war being hell really crept into the picture.

"Watch any war movie made in that era. Every war movie made then. Read the books, look at the art, merchandise, poetry, the sermons. There are only heroes never cravens shown. "

My sense is that at the beginning of the war people lionized war and thought it glorious to be a part of it, but as it dragged out for years and years people largely became sick of it and thought of it as pointless slaughter. A lot of that comes from books and movies both fiction and non, but most of them were written well after the war was over.

All Quiet on the Western Front (1928), Johnny Got His Gun (1939), Goodbye To All That (1929), etc. Most of the depictions I've seen have been largely anti-war. Was this the case, or have the works that have stayed over time been chosen because of modern sentiments to war?

Were there popular works of fiction that glamorized the war as being something other than a hellish churn of death?

​

Is there a middle truth that neither of us are touching on?

This is a question on historiography so it’s not about modern times. Thought I understand if the moda believe that violators the rules. The channel internet historian has a focus of studying events in internet history and presenting them in videos. Would he be considered a reputable historian or a good source?

Basically, anything having to do with Muslim civilizations. I need some recommendations. What do you guys have? And remember, I want RECENT books on the matter, not stuff from the 2000s or 1990s, but 2010s.

I'm interested to know what kind of forces such a small lord would have.

I am interested in the wealth of monasteries in the 9th and 10th centuries when some were astonishing wealthy. I am reading that some are reported as owning from 6 to 8 thousand land holdings or mansi, such as Prum.

If a portion of this wealth comes from lay donations I have a follow up question. Why donate so much or at all?

In most pop culture, including ancient pop culture it seems, there's lots of stories that prominently feature swords and swordsmen importantly. I wanted to know if that's a realistic view of things, when it comes to wider warfare I see similar tropes but as I understand it the reality is most people used spears pretty much until the advent of guns. But with regards to duels or tournaments was this because the sword was actually the best tool for the job? Is there a reason people didn't engage in some kind of formal martial contest with axes or spears all the time too? Did they do so with spears and axes all the time too? I tried to google it but seems like a lot of the questions get asked as though it all comes down to the weapon, and once people started talking about dual wielding I kinda got skeptical.

I do get the basics of it. Like a kingdom has duchies as vassals and empires have kingdoms as vassals.

But for example why was Austria never a kingdom, but only an archduchy, while Bohemia (roughly the same size) was a kingdom?

Another example: The UK, which had/has multiple kingdoms (England, Wales, Scotland and (Northern) Ireland, is still considered a kingdom instead of an empire? Or is this because the same sovereign holds those titles instead of one of those kingdoms being under the vassalage of said sovereign?

And what about other names? Like counties, princedoms, earldoms, baronies, marches or grand duchies.

Who determines, what rank(?) the realm is going to be? Does the sovereign just announce that or is there another authority that handles this? For christians I imagine this to be the pope, but what about Protestants and Orthodox?

Because from what I've managed to find, there is no known evidence that it was really him, so I was hoping, not so much for a concrete answer, but just everything we know about the situation overall...

This happens after a 3 day trip from Ireland which can lead us to assume he didn't arrive to England but most certainly mainland Europe. Is there any place or particular reason that made possible for them not to encounter any one for that amount of time?

P.S. I know I'm conflating tactics and strategy, but the distinction between the two in trench warfare seems muddled to me, apologies.

Is St. Augustine just as important as settlements such as Jamestown or is it's historical importance linked to it's long life?

This may sound like a dumb question, but what were all of the events that could make such a stable civilization fall?