Because of the tensions between Iran and the American dominated world; and historically bad relations between US and Iran from 79 and now, I am sensitive to American and Israeli (abit of Iranian) bias when studying the domestic and foreign policy of Iran.

I would like if anyone can recommend ang good Iranian sources of foreign policy and domestic politics (historical or current) which are translated from Farsi, or also good English sources that give a decently accurate and insightful political history of Contemporary Iran.

I've read many times, both on Ask Historians and in other places, that the sword was not nearly as common as we think it was, that it was more common for pre-gunpowder soldiers to carry axes, hammers and particularly spears for reasons including the fact that the spear had a lot of advantages over the sword such as reach and ease of manufacture.

Why then did the Romans use swords as the primary weapon for their hastatii and principes, and then later for their legionaries? And if swords were so much better, why did they continue arming the triarii with spears?

It occurred to me the other day that while I’m familiar with the awful fate that awaited Soviet troops who were captured by the Germans, I have no idea how that worked out on the Finnish front. In short: Did all prisoners remain in Finnish custody (or were they handed over to the Germans) and b) if they were left in Finnish custody, what sort of treatment would they expect?

Also, for clarity’s sake I’m referring to ‘41+, not the Winter War.

I don't really understand why the two cradles of civilization of the New World (the Olmecs and Norte Chico) were where they were, the jungles of Central America and the extraordinarily dry coastal deserts of Peru respectively, while the fertile plains of the Pampas and the Mississippi either didn't develop a civilization at all or did so thousands of years later.

Can anyone tell me why this was the case, and also why the Mississippi or the Parana basins didn't develop the first New World civilizations?

Hi!

I’ve always been fascinated by the early days of steam. I’m looking for a book that focuses on the people involved - from, say, James Watt up to the first day of the Liverpool & Manchester Railway.

I’ve read the Wikipedia pages and looked through the reference lists but they seem to be narrow references rather than the sort of overview I have in mind.

Do you know of a book that fits the above description? (Ideally one that I can buy from the Kindle store, but that’s not super important.)

Thanks!

I'm curious to find more info on the appeal and popularity of the communist movement among former colonies in sub-Saharan Africa. Also, which African leaders of the 60s/70s/80s were actual Marxists/Socialists and which simply used it as a cover to get aid from the Soviets/Chinese/Cubans?

​

Any particular links or books you might recommend?

About The Books

1. Shorter books that are available in electronic form are preferable to long ones that only exist in dead-tree edition.
2. You can also suggest sections of longer books that deal with these specific subjects

About The Subjects

I am especially interested in the subjects:

• the Western and Eastern fronts
  • how capable would the Soviet Union be to win the war without any support?
• the inner workings of the Nazi Party
• the relationship and collaboration between Franklin Delano and Roosevelt Winston Churchill
• Stalin's mental state, modus-operandi and the overall Soviet Union strategy mentality
• Joseph Goebbels propaganda machine. How it was conceived and how it influences propaganda to this day.
• How effective Heinrich Himmler and its SS really where

Thanks!

[deleted]

I'm currently doing a report on Chinese history, and remember that in high school my AP World teacher mentioned that the opium wars caused more deaths than WW1. I've tried looking for sources that mention/confirm this, but haven't had any luck. So did the opium wars have more deaths than WW1?

"Slave collars, evidence for the brutal force necessary for maintenance of a slave society, increased in popularity in post-Constantinian times, and many slave collars bear Christian iconography, such as the alpha and the omega or the chi-rho figure. So discomfiting are these objects that nineteenth-century scholars described them as dog collars rather than acknowledge that ancient Christians regularly bound other persons in a crude manner.“

Glancey “Slavery and the Rise of Christianity,” Camb. World Hist. of Slavery 1, 477f.

Any hard data on the "increase in popularity"?

I was recently reading about the 1937 Battle of Shanghai, and the frequent Japanese use of Naval artillery to offset the lack of land based artillery available to army forces on the ground.

This made me wonder, how effective were WW2 naval vessels at providing artillery support to ground forces? Obviously if, for example, HMS Warspite were to land a hit on an infantry position with a 15 inch naval gun, the result would be devestating, but would she feasibly be landing enough hits to actually make her presence worthwhile?

I'd imagine artillery fired from an unstable platform, pitching in the ocean, shooting inland at a target it could not see, most likely co-ordinating with a forward observer from a different element, would have incredibly low accuracy.

So, how effective was Naval offshore bombardment during the Second World War? Did certain belligerents employ specific tactics to make it more effective then others? Or was the psychological impact of the existence of this large caliber support more important then actual results on the ground?

Thanks!

In an early chapter of Dracula, the Count gives a long monologue to the narrator Jonathan Harker about his family's heritage, in which he claims his Szekely heritage (even distinct from Magyar Hungarians):

“We Szekelys have a right to be proud, for in our veins flows the blood of many brave races who fought as the lion fights, for lordship. [...] And when the Hungarian flood swept eastward, the Szekelys were claimed as kindred by the victorious Magyars, and to us for centuries was trusted the guarding of the frontier of Turkey-land; ay, and more than that, endless duty of the frontier guard, for, as the Turks say, ‘water sleeps, and enemy is sleepless.’ [...] Again, when, after the battle of Mohács, we threw off the Hungarian yoke, we of the Dracula blood were amongst their leaders, for our spirit would not brook that we were not free. Ah, young sir, the Szekelys—and the Dracula as their heart’s blood, their brains, and their swords—can boast a record that mushroom growths like the Hapsburgs and the Romanoffs can never reach. The warlike days are over. Blood is too precious a thing in these days of dishonourable peace; and the glories of the great races are as a tale that is told.”

I understand that Bram Stoker's actual historical research was very spotty (like Dracula claiming descent from Attila the Hun as well), but for the purposes of this question, I distinguish between the historical ruler of Wallachia and the fictional character's biography as established by Bram Stoker in the novel.

Additional questions: how accurate was Stoker with making the distinction between Magyars and Szekelys as separate ethnicities? Have Hungarians ever tried to use the fictional Dracula to promote their claims on Transylvania after the partition of Hungary? When and how did the fictional Count's nationality become ingrained as Romanian in Anglophone popular imagination, rather than the Szekely/Hungarian heritage Stoker wrote of?

Edit: I don't know why this is tagged as "Hunting and Fishing" but it's not--unless Count Dracula's dietary habits count as hunting...

[deleted]

I am a baker and have to be at work at 5 am, and I would be late every single day if I didn't use my alarm. How did bakers or other early riser tradesmen (and women) make sure they were up on time?

He traveled across India (in early 5th century), collecting and copying manuscripts, taking down all the data he heard from the mouth of tutors; went back with everything to China, and wrote a book. What material did they write on during that age? Paper was used in India long after this (probably around 11th century).

Greetings all,

I myself am keenly aware of the differences, especially in the fundamental differences between the two ideologies (the former being formed in direct opposition to the latter). But the purpose of me asking this is to getting a more holistic, comprehensive answer to this question. Because I often hear National Socialism compared to Socialism as if the two were analogous, when that couldn't be farther from the truth, and I'm not the most skilled fluently explaining all the differences and their nuances.

I appreciate anyone who takes the time to read and answer this.

There were obviously traders across nations and ambassadors, so how did these people learn these languages?