Title?

Most people today go for either camo (which might have been too hard to make at the time) or earth tones like green or khaki. Why would people want easy to see colors like bright red?

I have a passion for learning authentic Chinese cooking. I've noticed that many Chinese recipes use methods or recipes that call for lots of oil of various types. They are all modern, refined oils that were not widely available in China until the early 20th century from what I've read.

Are methods like stir frying, deep frying, etc and regional cuisines like szechuan with oil based sauces more modern or were fats like lard more common before the introduction of modern refined cooking oils?

Hello! I was wondering if any of you lovely people know some good books about Gothic Architecture?? I’m doing some research for a graphic novel. Thank you all and have a lovely day!!

Elaboration. No history youtube channels no shows, i don't see discussions about it. Furthest people ever go is Poland, before leaping back to big nations.

I was told that it was this great place, land covering from Baltic sea to the black. Great military power and at one point one of the largest countries in Europe, no one talks about it. Union with Poland and later commonwealth, everyone calls it Poland instead of Polish Lithuanian commonwealth.

I understand that people build up their history to get people bit patriotic but i think this is one of the special places where one could ask a question like mine.

Okay so tomorrow, July 4th, marks the "Birthday" of the United States of America. As we all know, on July 4th the Founding Fathers so bravely declared their independace from British rule and set out to establish their own country, ect. But as we all know, e-mail and telephones didn't exist back then, they had to send it to the king physically. So a few questions here regarding this matter:

1. When did the king actually get his hands on the Declaration of Independace? (Or copy of), and was this his first time seeing/hearing about it?

2. Was the King really the person that needed to see it, or was Parliament/a colonial governor the real intended recipient of the Declaration of Independance?

3. Was the Declaration of Independance really needed in this situation, or was it just a metaphorical middle finger to the British in order to raise morale for revolutionary forces? The war itself had been going ln for over a year now (I'm going with Lexington and Concord as the start, since thats what most sources cite), so why wad the Declaration even needed?

Feel free to answer one or all if you can, sorry it has so many parts, but honestly they don't really teach you much of this in school here even in America (My US History class started with the Civil War actually with everything before that being a "Teach yourself" summer project). Thanks in advance for the answers!

As in, why did they not get their own separate nations?

My great uncle was an ardent anti-communist. He fought against communists in the Spanish Civil War, and in the Greek Civil War. He'd said many times that the only thing evil on God's Earth were communists. I also remember him saying he can meet his Maker with a clear conscience because he never cheated on his wife with a woman more attractive than her, and he never harmed his fellow man, only communists.

After the wars, he became an engineering professor in the 60's and 70's. He told me of his colleagues who had a plan to turn the US socialist. It had three parts.

Part 1 was to encourage massive amounts of people to get welfare benefits.

Part 2 was for the government to become bankrupt from paying for welfare benefits for such a large amount of people.

Part 3 was for the masses who now could not provide for themselves to overthrow the current US government in favor for a social welfare state which would be run by these academics.

My uncle told me more details of this plan, such as encouraging migration to the US by offering migrants generous social services hence increasing the masses dependent on the state, advocating for universal basic income, and creating a divide among the mostly white middle class (paying taxes) and minority populations in the US (consuming social services in this case).

He told me about this 30 years ago.

Two questions for historians

• Is this remotely true?
• If so, who were these professors? Did they have well known publications or schools of thought?

[deleted]

It is said that the Carthaginians went to war with the Greeks on Sicily the same year that the Persians went to war with the Greeks, 480 BC.

There are some theories that the Carthaginians were allied with the Persians to attack Greece. Is there any evidence to support this or is it only thought so due to them invading the same year?

It seems like if a place in the Americas was colonized by England or France (with the exception of Haiti because of the revolution), it had relatively little interracial reproduction and turned mostly white, whereas Spain or Portugal had the opposite of that, which is strange because of how actively brutal they were toward native peoples. Did they simply stop sending colonists earlier? Was it a cultural difference, a different economic strategy, or Latin America just being more densely populated to begin with?

[deleted]

[deleted]

Besides Britain and France did they seek it elsewhere? Also weren't those opposed Britain and France aware that the Romanovs were in danger?

I was wondering about this and to extension, what can and can it be considered colonialism. I’m having a debate on r/Africa on “anti-colonialism”. A term that was designated to the apparent only nation in Africa that is anti-colonialist, the dervish state. I’m arguing that Ethiopia is anti colonist also but I’m kind of biased in my view so that’s why I ask. So is the Ogaden region being handed over to Ethiopia colonialism in Ethiopia’s part?

I'm aware of how this would contradict with the Nazi's view of women's role in society and how (what were at the time) such drastic measures might lead to a second "stab in the back" in the eyes of the Nazi's. I'm also aware of how they made "use of" so to say of forced and slave labor from POWs and civilians in occupied territory. Are there any other factors at play that make Germany seemingly appear as an outlier compared to other nations?

I've reread Chaim Potok's The Chosen, and there is a fierce argument about the creation of Israel between the Hasidim and the more liberal Jewish rabbis, with the former being staunchly opposed and the latter being in favor of. Today, however, it seems like the more conservative American Jews are strongly in favor of Israel and their settlements--so what changed? Or did it actually change, and the picture portrayed in the book was inaccurate?

I know this touches a rather sensitive topic, so please don't go on polemics about modern politics regarding Israel and Palestine, it will save literally all of us the hassle.

My wife and I were discussing this over dinner. Obviously they didn't have things like modern insulation or central air conditioning...I've spent summers in Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas and they are brutal. How did they deal with them? What methods did they use?

They were apparently pretty good commanders themselves as they took over for their father in the last battle when he died

Europeans had almost all of African countries colonized for at least 200 years and every African country except Ethiopia was under their rule (Yeah yeah Liberia too but they had their reasons). This is sort of the national pride here and huge sacrifices were made to maintain that independence. But I don't think that was the only reason someone didn't take over (I mean they just took over a continent), but I can't find any sources citing other reasons and asking that here would be blasphemy. So historians what were the other reasons Ethiopia remained independent for so long?

I’m reading I, Claudius by Robert Graves, and I’m really having trouble wrapping my head around the Julio-Claudian family tree. I kind of know why Tiberius passed Augustus, but I don’t know what happened to Augustus’s three natural sons, and I can’t see why Germanicus wouldn’t have come after Tiberius, and then Nero after him. And that begs the question of how Claudius became emperor in the first place (I know that’s the point of the book, but I’m not done with it, I’m at the part where Augustus just died). A concise explanation or simplified family tree (google images does NOT help) would be greatly appreciated.

If someone moved to frontier town, there would be a saloon, a sheriff etc but where would they live? did everyone live in town? did they live in houses elsewhere and just go to town daily?