It's not an historic related question and I apologize if it's out of topic - if so feel free to delete or ignore it. What do you think of Harari as an historian and of his theories? I'm referring to Yuval Noah Harari and his best selling books (Sapiens, Homo Deus, 21 lessons for the 21st century).

I’m a Roman citizen, and Odoacer has just marked the end of the Western Roman Empire and has created the Kingdom of Italy. How drastically different will my day to day life be as a Roman citizen under Odoacer’s rule? How repressed is traditional Roman culture and customs?

[deleted]

I read a lot of posts in this subreddit. Particularly in threads about Sino-Japanese War and Chinese Civil War. It's often said that the KMT was 'corrupt' and thus the CCP was more popular among the Chinese populace. How were they 'corrupt'? And to what extent?

I was always under the impression that Corinth could be considered the "third power" of the Greeks, however I have been hearing Thebes was the closest to rivaling the power of Athans and Sparta.

[deleted]

I'm referring to the modern setup of snare, kick drum, high hat, one or two tom's up top and a floor tom with two or three cymbals.

The indus valley civilization just ended it was there and then poof gone, It was not like the ancient Egyptian civilization, based on geology and dating and genetics the people who lived there are similar to the dravidian people of southern India, Most theories say that it was a natural calamity but is there anything history can tell us or what is the reason?

I am curious if there was a 'set' schedule for public announcements (like us in modern days waiting for the 6pm news), or if Town Criers usually waited until they attracted a large enough crowd? If it was based on a time schedule, then was there an extra charge for 'prime time' (most people around)?

Often times in media, medieval battles will depict a scene where two knights supported by their various squires will enter a melee/brawl after the formations and charges are broken. Knights are typically portrayed as wheeling around one another trying to unhorse or simply kill their opponent. In reality, if this duel was interrupted by a third soldier killing my horse, would my training allow me to unhorse myself in a way that reduces injury? Or is it more likely that my horse would fall to the side, and my leg would get crushed, most likely killing me? What are the quick, life-or-death options for a knight whose horse has been killed beneath him? Also, oftentimes horses are incredibly difficult to kill (just ask anyone who's shot a horse to euthanize it) , would the horse simply immediately tip over in most cases or would it be a slower process of collapsing over his own legs?

It had never occured to me what the average belief was about dinosaurs throughout history till recently. When was the first recorded instance when dinosaur fossils were discovered? What was the general attitude towards the early theories of dinosaurs in the scientific community and the general population? How did the church react about the discovery of fossils and the fact that there was a species that lived on the earth long before we did?

The Huns, the Magyars, the Kazakhs, the Jurchens, the Turks, the Mongols.

It seems like throughout history, nomadic armies always had the upper hand against settled empires, who usually ended up paying them tributes.

You would think the amount of wealth, resource, manpower and organization a settled empires have would give them an advantage over the poorer and less organized nomads, yet this was proven false times and time again. So why were settled empires so bad at repelling nomadic invasions?

This is always something I've been curious about. My American education has been extremely thin on the histories of communist countries. I was always forced to self-educate to learn what I wanted because usually the history is presented as "Everything was going fine no one cares, until Russian Soviets deposed the royal family and put in a puppet state of communist sympathizers and then America was forced to intervene and re-establish status quo". It's obvious that American education highlighted American values, so I am wondering how countries with other values are taught about the history of America.

Like, are characters like George Washington and Tom Jefferson remembered as proto-revolutionaries? Or bourgeois, slave-owning smugglers who waged war against their state to avoid paying their mandated taxes? How much of the American narrative is held up in these countries and how much is lambasted?

Is America seen as Imperialist by birth? Or is it presented as a situation in which America was SEIZED by imperialists. If that's the case, when and by whom is it assumed was America "taken over" by capitalists?

​

I'd love any resources you guys could give me, especially in case everyone makes unsubstantiated comments and everything gets removed before I can see it. Any guide to help me learn more about the topic on my own time would be greatly appreciated

Was it due to leadership, culture, weapons or anything else?

I have no idea how, say, Chinese or Western historians view the history of Mongols after fragmentation of the empire but some readings from the Russian ones have been somewhat confusing for me since, according to the most prevalent opinion in Russian historical circles (including Roman Khrapachevsky, probably the most respected specialist in this area of research here), Mongols pretty much never suffered defeats aside from 1-2 minor engagements and were, more or less, relatively the best fighting force in the history of the mankind. Defeats and collapses suffered by Mongolian states after defragmentation of the empire do not count since those were not "true Mongols": existing outside of their ancstors' way of life (constant hunting and horse riding since childhood, perfected archery skills, harsh life with little to no comfort), they quickly grew soft and thus were more easy for the sedentary people to defeat.

Many very strong claims are usually brought up, including the fact that horse archery is the best possible way of waging warfare before mass produced artillery and gunpowder weaponry. According to Khrapachevsky, essentially, Mongols managed to defeat everyone they came across as long as they remained united and had "original" troops coming from the steppes, and every single time they were defeated (aside from ambush here and there) it happened long after they became weak warriors. Every time Mongolian States managed to somehow retain their archery and tactical skills they came out on top again and again (Tatars defeating European enemies at Vorskla in 1399, Timur destroying sedentary Turks at Ankara in 1402), and only "softer life" saved the rest of the world from utter destruction. Some even go as far as claiming that European/Indian/Japanese/etc would've been entirely hopeless against Mongolian onslaught even in 15-16-17 century, since Mongolian tactical and fighting capabilities were that good. I remember a citation from the book akin to "Mongolian Empire existed for 10 times lesser time period than Roman Empire yet managed to capture 10 times as many lands".

What do other historians (especially from other countries) think of these claims? Were Mongolian/Tatar descendants indeed as awful as it is often brought up?

Preferably unbiased if possible.

I've been looking around, and apparently some of the Norse settled in New England. Some going onto say Leif Eriksson built a house in Cambridge. How long did these settlements last, let alone if they were real? Lastly, what happen when the colony disbanded, did they assimilate or sail back to Scandinavia? If anyone has any info, thanks.

The US government must have known of the main leaders in the anti war movement. I understand a lot of them were in college and got deferments for the draft.

​

Why didn't they just round them up and ship them to vietnam? would it have caused more issues than it solved?

How is the 100 years war being taught in the french perspective and narrative?