I know my question is a little vague and is based on Eurocentric/Marxist education I got. In its context, it makes sense to talk about vague periods of time. Prehistoric times with no complex economic relationships, Slavery times in classical era, Feudal relationships in Medieval times, Capitalism afterward. It makes sense when we talk about Europe: before certain time most of it was either ruled by the economies relying on slavery; later those empires crumbled and for most of the Medieval era Europe and the Middle East condemned slavery. While it was still practice it was no longer a basis for the economy.

What am I missing is why world history in general still is divided into same periods. The medieval era is still used even if people talk about India or China or even American people even if another term is used, like the Post-Classical era. I understand why the Modern era is common for everybody; it's the time of globalization and everyone is touched by this process. But what is the difference between the Classical era and the Medieval era for most of the world?

Alexander Hamilton lived on the danish colony of st. Croix between 1765 and 1772 (age 8-15), so could he speak danish or write in it? I've tried searching on the internet, but I didn't find anyone addressing this exact question, so I hope this helps. Thank you in advance

Did the ancient world, (Like ancient greek, maybe when the old Egyptian kingdoms) have to deal with leftover Ice age and stone-age stuff? Like where their tribes of the absolute savage stone age "cavemen" coming upon "civilized" ancient greek cities, or some now extinct giant ice age animals that were still roaming the old forests when Rome was still rising, etc.

Like a guy carving stone for the first pyramids just sees some near-extinct ancient creature that we wouldn't know of because it went extinct in 3000bc, so on.

In the 53 stations of Tokaido Fukuroi depicts men smoking and lighting pipes, where would the tobacco they are smoking come from? How did Tobacco Enter Japanese society?

They obviously didn't have radios or telegrams, so what did they use?

This is just something I wondered about after reading up on the Boston Tea Party and the third boycott (1774). Aside from concealment of identity, I don't understand the message that would convey.

History has always been the subject that I had the most passion for learning and naturally was my best subject throughout middle and high school. Always in honors history and going above the requirements for the class since i had a natural love for the subject. I completed a semester of college as a film major but found it slow and reteaching much of what I already knew (I've worked in live media and broadcasting for 4 years).

I'm in the process of going back to college after some time off due to a family matter. With so many degrees heavy on math (my worst subject) and finding many other fields boring or dull (If I have an interest in something I can do well since a passion forms), I've come to the conclusion that I would be a good history major.

My sweet mother is saying otherwise. Questioning my sanity for pursuing a degree that to her, will land me at a desk in a high school teaching fortnite playing vapers. I'm applying for a Marine Corp ROTC scholarship which would allow me to major in anything I want and the Corp would pay for my education. And while I have never lived a day in that lifestyle I could see myself doing 20 years and retiring.

​

Give me the most blunt, honest, humorous, advice you can muster up.

[deleted]

[deleted]

In places like the UK we can trace back forests and woodlands that have been managed for hundreds of years. We also know quite a bit about logging, lumber trade, and management techniques in Europe throughout history.

I understand controlled burns were common and forests were described as “park like” in America at time of European arrival. What else do we know about Pre-Colombian forestry/logging?

I am writing a screenplay, and this will definitely alter the course of the story depending on the answer. Were sailors in World War 2 permitted to carry guns, particularly when on land? If so, what were they? If not, why not?

I read an article earlier today about Hoover's response to the 1929 crash that offhandedly mentioned a recession that began in 1873 and, according to some economists, didn't really end until 1897. Is there much credence to this idea and are there any other significant examples of economies post 1800 that were in states of recession for upwards of 20 years without completely collapsing?

I've been looking at the faculty profile pages of the history departments of several universities, and it seems like almost no one describes their work as centering around WWI or WWII. There are plenty who talk about questions arising out of the Civil War and Vietnam, but anyone who lists WWII as a primary area of interest is usually an emeritus professor. To me, it almost comes across like it's 'out of fashion' to study WWII in particular. Any thoughts?

First reddit post so forgive me if im not doing it right, i think i may be a descendant to the toyotomi clan. My grandmother recently this year passed away, and on her urn is her family crest, which after a google search on what a family crest even was, i noticed it matched the toyotomi clans emblem. She lost contact with her family after marrying a korean man but stayed in tokyo untill she came to live with my dad and his older brother in new york when he was a teenager. I never have met anyone from her side of the family but it could be that they are deacendants. Her maiden last name was tomiko which is not the same as toyotomi but maybe it was changed somewhere along the line. Are family crests special that not anyone can use any crest they want? How can i varify this other than inquiring of my relatives? If you guys need additional clarification or further questions im open to discussion and would genuinly like to know how i can look into this. I also do not know how to add a picture of the urn to this thread lol

So, in high school I was taught that one of the factors that led to the fall of Rome was Catholic Missionaries going out and telling all these people of the magic of Rome paved in gold etc. and that led to a lot of attacks on Rome. How true is that?