Basically, I’m wondering why European conquerors had biological warfare on their side because of diseases they brought over to the Americas, whereas the Native Americans didn’t have a similar advantage.

From 1660 onwards, today (29th May) was celebrated in England as Restoration Day, Royal Oak Day or Oak Apple Day to commemorate the restoration of the Monarchy remembering how Charles escaped the Battle of Worcester by hiding in an Oak Tree.

Yet the public celebration of the Holiday was banned in 1859, but I can't find any information that points as to why Parliament chose to abolish it, merely that was the year when it ended. Any help on why this holiday was ended would be appreciated, thanks!

The Nazi rise was in large part to how they acted as opponents to communism and many saw Hitler's approach at the time to be positive in that it prevented Soviet growth into the Western world. The communists were also synonymous with red imagery, whether it be the Red Army, their red propaganda et cetera. Thus why is it that a large amount of the Nazi propaganda, most infamously the swastika used the colour red?

To what extent did the US assist/oppose Pakistan in their (successful) effort to get the bomb, and what was the nature of the US role?

[deleted]

George Orwell was able to explain the oppresive regime of USSR in such detail. How so? Wasn’t the information about it hidden and hard to acquire?

I really want to dip my feet into the historical classics like the prince and the republic. Some of them are really cheap (5-6 dollars) like the dover thrift editions and im wondering if they are good for a budding historical enthusiast like me or if they are of questionable quality?

Hello,

I am trying to get a good feeling on how high middle ages battles would play out. Note that I am not looking for battles where army A ambushes army B, but battles where armies faced each other like the Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa, Hasting, Crecy, etc.

I know they were more the exception than the norm and that documentation is sketchy at best, but I would like to know if you could refer me to well-documented battles of the high middle ages, like the Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa (at least, in the Spanish wiki), where we know fairly well the formation of both sides and how the battle took place.

Thank you in advance!

I think all of you will have heard this by now. Neo nazis are particularly stubborn and constantly reccomend the documentary. Is there a certain video or piece debunking this crap. Yes I'm aware the creator is not a historian or even a documentary maker but these arguments need more teeth.

[deleted]

I am aware that Augustus and his immediate successors kept up the illusion of Roman republicanism until the Crisis of the Third Century, in so much that they were not emperors or out-right dictators, but rather just princeps, that the Roman Senate still existed as a ceremonial legislature, and that there was never any sort of declared "end" to the Roman Republic.

The Norman Conquest of 1066 is one of the most famous events in English history, and it’s implications in a political sense are often discussed.

However, what isn’t talked about is how life changed for the Anglo-Saxon peasantry in the country. What would have changed for these people?

Also, how did the English culture - at the peasant level - become Norman? Why did Anglo-Saxon names die out?

As well, we hear of tales of human sacrifice as well any drug uses. I know this may be a lot to cover. But would love the order and break downs Aztec, Mayan, etc

Thanks

[deleted]

I read that Cromwell tried a lot of different governmental things during his rule in England, but I can't quite recall where I read that he abolished private property specifically, and my google-fu is turning up nothing. Did that actually happen, or am I under Mandela's spell?

• Also, what did the Ancient Greek and Roman philosophers make of Athena/Minerva’s role as a goddess of war even though those societies were highly-patriarchal ones in which women were expected to have little-to-no life in the public sphere outside of domestic life in the home and family?

• In what ways was Athena/Minerva worshipped? Did soldiers pray or give offerings to her before a battle or carry votive images or talismans in her image during wartime? Or were her other divine aspects such as her being the goddess of wisdom or her patronage of the city of Athens more emphasized than her warrior-goddess incarnation? Did men and women venerate her equally or did she have more male followers than female ones due to her being an embodiment of war?

This is from Zizek's 2007 book "Violence", a major theme of which is evaluating the different forms of systemic violence that are inherent to different societal models, such as the modern global capitalist model or a Marxist model. Generally I find Zizek to be a rational and credible if radical guy, but there is a brief passage on Buddhism that left me feeling like I was missing something:

​

"...the Buddhist ethics of solidarity with every living being, falls into this picture. After all, what Buddhism offers as a solution is a universalised indifference -- a learning of how to withdraw from too much empathy. This is why Buddhism can so easily turn into the very opposite of universal compassion: the advocacy of a ruthless military attitude, which is what the fate of Zen Buddhism aptly demonstrates."

​

I have no doubts that a logical train of thought led to this argument, but it is still quite an audacious thing to say that the history of Buddhism "aptly demonstrates" that it can "so easily" turn into "the advocacy of a ruthless military attitude." To be clear, I do not think that Buddhism is an inherently peaceful ideology, but I also don't think it is clearly more militaristic than anything else, which is what Zizek is arguing here clearly and simply. My question is, what historical events is he referring to when he talks about Buddhism encouraging violence? And not just scenarios where a militaristic attitude emerged in a generally Buddhist region, but specifically scenarios where Buddhism directly led to and encouraged the militarism. He is making a pretty sweeping statement, that the Buddhist value of solidarity with the universe has empirically been a direct cause of violence. Where is that true?

​

EDIT: I didn't mean to add the "Diplomacy" flair and I can't seem to make it go away.

I know TvTropes is not an historical source or any kind of academic encyclopedia. As such, it's bound to feature myths and popular misconceptions. I just wanted to check if the idea that the Confederates made laws to protect the slaves is pure neo-confederate propaganda or has, at least, some basis on reality. I'm leaning towards the first, since no matter how much they claimed that the slaves were happy and that paternal slave-owners took good care of them, the reality was much worse. But I wanted to hear it from someone more knowledgeable about slavery.

I fail to understand why German high command, particularly the SS continued to attempt to solve the 'Jewish question' even after their primary plans for relocation and deportation we no longer feasible, especially by the summer of 1941 a swift German victory (which the plans of the time to solve the Jewish question relied on) no longer appeared to be realistic. Why not abandon this issue until a later date in which they can formally focus on it. Goring was even opposed to the distraction this posed on the German war effort. I understand that this is a tough question to answer and is highly unlikely to be definitively answered, but anything to help me wrap my head around it would be appreciated.

The most detail I've been able to find mentioned only that she intended to levy a tax on them to refill the regal coffers, which they did not like the sounds of. But I couldn't find any further details about that tax or why else they turned her away.