It seems like there's a tradition, or stereotype, that when you want to celebrate something important like a wedding, birth, or big promotion, and you want to celebrate it in an elegant way, people will stereotypically buy Champaign. Specifically Champaign, above other alcohols in general or Sparkling wines in particular. Why is this? When and how did this begin?

So looking at photos and depictions of Ottoman Sultanas and other women of note noticeably has them without the Islamic headwear common today.

Was this representative of women and Islam at the time, or was this trend more among the social elites?

As a European whose formal education on American history consisted of the World Wars & Revolution, I was led to believe the American Republic was originally conceived as almost a rejection of imperialism in general. I now know this to be not entirely accurate, however find the subject of American imperialism & neo-colonialism fascinating, although I don't know nearly enough about it.

Do you think there was a particular piece of legislation/war that cemented America's new role as an empire. I appreciate this depends on ones definition of 'empire'. I'd say a nation willing and able to consistently interfere in the issues of other nations - to its own benefit, with a large sphere of influence and the overseas territories that entails. But I really don't know masses about this area; you're the experts!

Additional question; is it fair to say private commerical interests were always the primary drivers of American expansion & latter interference in foreign nations e.g. changing regimes, installing loyal governments etc etc.

Thanks!

In the movies and television, pirates frequently have stashes of treasure hidden somewhere. I assume that is historically accurate. However, these stashes always seem to have mountains of gold, silver, and jewels. There's piles of coins, gold goblets, treasure chests spilling over with crowns, pearl necklaces, and I've even seen the occasional throne chair. How accurate are these depictions? What did a pirates stash actually look like? What's the biggest hoarde of treasure ever found? What kind of stuff was in it?

Did they exist as a discrete group or is it just a by product od hazy Roman writing? They didn't have writing so is it just a name for disparate people who shared similar cultural elements?

I am vaguely aware of the notion that later Roman emperors gave away food to the poor, in order to retain public order and popularity (the whole "bread and circus" -routine). I have a few questions about the logistics of such endeavors.

- Did Romans know who has poor and who was not? Did they ride to the typical poorer districts to give away the bread, or did the poor people flock to some specific areas for free food? Were they just handing out food to whoever was there to grab it? Did the recipients need to prove their citizenship? Are there any known cases of people getting the food, who did not really need it (for example, in order to sell it for profit)?

- Who baked the bread? Did the Roman government specifically order bread from bakers for the poor, or were the poor just given whatever leftovers there were? Was there a separate system of logistics for "poor people bread", or was it just working alongside any normal food transportation affairs? Was there a guy in charge of the whole system?

- What happened if there were no food to give, for whatever reason? Were there food riots? Were these handouts something that emperors frequently to cut back, in case of economic troubles, or were they rather reluctant to do so (public order, etc.)?

I'm also specifically interested in the period when Marc Anthony and Cleopatra cut out the grain supplies to Rome (although I am aware this happened before the whole bread and circus -routine). How did Augustus handle the sudden lack of grain? Were people starving, dying, rioting? Was there any governmental programs to ease the suffering of the common people, or did the rich just not care?

I know, for example, that the countries where Fascism met with some but not complete success (like Spain and France) don't quite fit this system. But Germany and Italy are products of 19th century Nationalism, while Russia and Britain where fascism had no real success are states that were expanded under royal power in the 15th-18th centuries, not forged by 19th century nationalism.

[deleted]

So I am reading Arrighis book The Long Twentieth Century. A great book in which he explains his theory about how the modern (capitalist) world system seems to be cyclical. From Florence to Genova over the Dutch and British Empire to end with the (current?) American hegemony, he identifies how these power centers developed imsimilar cycles: Starting with a material expansion to a finansial from where a new cycle centered another place in the world would begin.

​

What Im really struggling with is to grasp how he measures these economic factors? In todays world you would look at BNP, FDI, finansial measures etc. but I guess you can't find these measures in the fourteenth century? He builds his theory on data sources from fx Braudel and other third parties but do not, at least from where I am in the book, explain how this data was collected?

​

Can you explain how this is done? (Probably easier asked than answered)

​

Thanks a lot!

There are 4 vivid cast-iron statues near the entrance, featuring hunting scenes. 3/4 show noblemen hunting w/dogs classic German prey: boars, stags, foxes. The fourth features an American buffalo & the statue is dated 1902. Why a buffalo? Was there ever a live buffalo in Tiergarten (hunted or kept in a zoo)?

I while ago I made a post on the ww2 subreddit a while back in some good books about Barbarossa in ww2, that’s when I was recommended to this subreddit. I was just wandering what were some books that you find really enlightening on Barbarossa. I am also wondering what books discuss the logistics, as I have not found any good books. Sorry if this question is vague. Thanks for you time.

So I've been researching the pyramids and a lot of the scientists say that they may have been built by extraterrestrials, are older than they seem, and there's no poof they were used for burial sites. Where's the proof for or against it? I've seen a lot of proof supporting these theories, but not a lot of rational sense proof, unless I'm wrong and they're right? If so, what were the pyramids theorized to be used for and how were they built? And what evidence supports these theories? Also, why then were they built?

I am mostly interested in the following topics:

1. American history from around ~1760-1776 (why was it so important for America to form?)
2. American history from independence until the civil war (I already know a little bit about Lincoln; why was he assassinated etc)?
3. American history which cover the time around 1900-1949, including immigration (ellis island), involvement of the wars etc.

I have a good understanding of the Great Depression, and life since the 1950s.

One movie or book does not need to cover the breadth of topics, and I understand there might be some overlap.

Having finished my BA History last academic year I have now started in a Research Masters program focussing on Modern History. As we do not have any specialists in the field of the History of Technology at my Uni I'm pretty much left to my own devices in further pursuing my interest (as obvious from my Flair that would be Aviation History) One of my assignments is an analysis of my field of interest, broadly speaking the History of Aviation falls under the History of Technology.

As there is no real guidance / clear cut starting point for me I'm concretely looking for seminal papers / authors with regards to theoretical approaches to the History of Technology. I hope that someone can point me towards them.

So far I think I have identified two main streams apart from merely deterministically describing the development of technology , one focussing on the influence of society on technological development, and the other doing it vice versa. Really I'm a bit lost and overwhelmed at the moment.

Before Italian Unification did the average citizen of each nation completely identify as eg Sardinian, Lombardic, Venetian? If not what did they identify as? Along with this, what nations had these national identities. Which of these nations had a strong national identity and which did not? Like what did the people of the Papal States identify as?

I recall reading that what we now understand as nationalism, the correlation between state an nation, was born in the late 18th century with the French Revolution. Before that, territories were thinked of land zones that were ruled by someone. Thats why countries could be divided between the sons of a dead king, and fusioned with the marriage of two leaders. When the idea that power emanated from the people and not the kings was put in practice in France, in a way that threatened the unity of the country, so nationalism emerged as a reason to keep together the territories of the old kingdom.

That's how I understand it, but maybe that's not entirely correct, or maybe it's fully wrong. Either way, I would like to now. Thanks in advance.