I know the British and later other Europeans were able to take treaty ports and force unequal treaties on the Chinese, but they didn’t need to stop there. They seized treaty ports and forced unequal treaties on Africans and were later able to conquer the whole continent despite terrible terrain and natural obstacles, as well as an extremely decentralized political structure. China was super centralized and had a pretty good environment to project power into. European armies and navies were clearly superior. Why didn’t they try to cut China into pieces to be ruled directly, like Africa? Were there ever serious attempts made at conquering mainland China? I read on wikipedia that in the late 1890’s Europeans were about to split China into pieces to be ruled by each power as a direct colony, and stopped because the Boxer Rebellion intimidated them. Is that true? Did the fall of Qing dynasty change anything?
1 Answers 2019-09-30
I‘ve been told that originally imperialism was focused on trade and commerce, whereas by the Scramble for Africa, colonizers were keen to actually subdue and control conquered people’s lives. Yet I struggle to comprehend some of the subtler differences. Where does the policy of “settling with the mother country’s own people” come into play? Wasn’t economic manipulation a huge part of 19th century colonialism? Wasn’t straight up conquest of foreign climes common practice in the 16th and 17th century Americas?
1 Answers 2019-09-29
For example, Íkaros —-> Icarus
What purpose does changing the K to a c and os to us serve? In many but not all cases it’s entirely misleading to the original pronunciation.
I understand this could be a linguistics question, but i’m also curious as to the historical development of the reasoning for it as to my layman eyes and mind it seems unnecessary and often detrimental.
1 Answers 2019-09-29
He was shot, poisoned and kicked in the head, do we know how he survived?
1 Answers 2019-09-29
If you specialise in a certain area of history; how much do you need to learn about art history at the time?
Do you need to learn as much about analysing formal aspects, style, iconography and artistic conventions as art historians do?
Would you analyse works of art as a primary source; and would it be valid for you to use the analysis of, for example; subtle iconography in a piece of art as evidence for a point?
1 Answers 2019-09-29
Music that could be called "Rock & Roll" had debatably been around since the mid 1940s, and there had been a rather steady stylistic evolution in the music as the years moved on past that point. However, in the mid 1960s (especially 1966) there appears to have been an unprecedented leap in style, composition, and diversity of ethos in the wider Rock music community.
Here's some examples to better illustrate what I'm getting at. In the 5 year stretch from around 1959 to 1964, Rock musicians went from producing songs like Johnny B. Goode to songs like You Really Got Me. This is definitely a pretty significant stylistic shift, but 5 years after 1964, rock bands like King Crimson were releasing songs like this. The complexity of the composition, and the diversity of sounds and influences on that track are all metaphorically light years ahead of what was coming out in 1964, despite the relative difference in time not being all that great.
I find that this disparity exists even on a smaller scale. There is a massive difference between The Beatles' 1965 album "Rubber Soul," and their subsequent 1966 album "Revolver." The same can be said when comparing the Beach Boys' 1965 album "The Beach Boys Today!" and their famous 1966 album "Pet Sounds." 1966 also saw the professional debuts of Frank Zappa, The Velvet Underground, Jimi Hendrix, and more whose interpretations of Rock music were so unprecedented that they shifted the very concept of what "Rock music" could even be.
Why was this shift so sudden in comparison to the relatively more steady evolution that Rock music had been undergoing in the 2 decades preceding the mid 1960s?
5 Answers 2019-09-29
1 Answers 2019-09-29
1 Answers 2019-09-29
I've realised I know shockingly little about pre-Columbian American history, especially that of the area which is now the US and Canada. I've tried searching for books that will give me a broad overview, but can't find anything obvious. Does anyone have any recommendations?
1 Answers 2019-09-29
1 Answers 2019-09-29
At what point can a country become a empire. It is about extension or multicultural? Give your own thoughts too
1 Answers 2019-09-29
I came across this on the Zombies wiki page, which seemed peculiar from a current perspective:
The original line-up declined to regroup for concerts following the belated American success of "Time of the Season". In turn, various concocted bands tried to capitalise on the success and falsely toured under the band's name. In a scheme organized by Delta Promotions, an agency that also created fake touring versions of The Animals and The Archies, two fake-Zombies were touring simultaneously in 1969, one hailing from Texas, the other from Michigan. The Texas group featured bassist Dusty Hill and drummer Frank Beard, soon to be members of ZZ Top.
Another group toured in 1988, going so far as to trademark the group's name (since the band had let the mark lapse) and recruit a bass guitarist named Ronald Hugh Grundy, claiming that original drummer Hugh Grundy had switched instruments.
The mention of the agency points to a somewhat larger trend - I could imagine this could have been more common before the internet, and before the stronger regulation of music copyright during the early 2000s. But also that this might not be well documented. Would be very interested to learn more about this either for The Zombies, or more generally the trend. Thanks in advance!
1 Answers 2019-09-29
1 Answers 2019-09-29
[deleted]
1 Answers 2019-09-29
1 Answers 2019-09-29
1 Answers 2019-09-29
Asking for a friend who was curious. It looks like they were both a military and civilian organisation? Where did it originate from?
1 Answers 2019-09-29
1 Answers 2019-09-29
Today:
Welcome to this week's instalment of /r/AskHistorians' Sunday Digest (formerly the Day of Reflection). Nobody can read all the questions and answers that are posted here, so in this thread we invite you to share anything you'd like to highlight from the last week - an interesting discussion, an informative answer, an insightful question that was overlooked, or anything else.
4 Answers 2019-09-29
Jesus and his followers were problematic enough for the Romans to decide his execution. Also, the rising of a numerous religious sect, with the capabilities to destabilize the Levant, may have been relevant for the Empire. Was the Emperor at the time of Jesus' death, Tiberius, informed about all of those events? Or did the governors have complete autonomy to make decisions without Rome knowing anything about what was happening in Palestine at all?
1 Answers 2019-09-29
1 Answers 2019-09-29
I’m interested in seeing some examples of native Americans bronze tooling ,but since I’ve never looked into this sort of thing I don’t know where to look. Does anyone know any good sources I should use ,or just any tips at all?
1 Answers 2019-09-29
What was the post-Oedipal form of socialisation?
1 Answers 2019-09-29