One reason I've heard put forward as to why the Islamic conquest of Byzantium happened so quickly was that the Byzantines were hit very hard by the Justinian plague, but the arid geography of arabia made it harder to spread there, so they were less devastated, is there anything to this?

What made the epidemics in the New World so much more deadly? Was it just the sheer number of them (I remember hearing it was like half a dozen or more epidemics all on the heels of eachother), and I remember in Thomas Mann's book 1491 or 1493, he talks about how a population bottleneck may have caused Natives to have less immune system diversity, so if they were vulnerable to a plague, fewer would happen to be resistant/immune. Is any of that correct? Are there factors I'm not considering?

While attempting to look up older brewing techniques out of curiosity on my university database, I got several hits that were actually from books aimed at women, all dated between 1730 and 1760, with titles like "the whole duty of women", "the lady's companion", and "the English housewife". Each of these books had a section dedicated to the production of alcohol, but while they discussed recipes in these sections they did not go into much detail about the social aspects of brewing, and it made me wonder about how often alcohol-making was an at-home endeavor rather than done by breweries.

Prior to this I'd just sort of assumed that alcohol was in general mass-produced and then consumed elsewhere, but this made me wonder about how inaccurate that assumption was.

So my question is; Was much of the alcohol consumed in this time period made at home (and if so, how much?), and were women expected to be proficient in brewing techniques/homemaking alcohol as a result? Was making wine a housewife's duty the same way that cooking or laundry would've been, or is the kind of alcohol described in these articles more of a treat for special occasions rather than the kind of thing one might make regularly?

I've always been interested in reading Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind, but I've heard from many people that it is not considered accurate by experts like anthropologists and historians. What is a book that is similar in format and content but considered more accurate?

1961 appears to be close enough to still have the terrors of World War 2 in mind, so it seems unlikely there would have been another war if either Western Germany or “an anonymous actor” had taken down the Wall.

Also, I can’t imagine them wanting to preserve diplomatic relationships because that premise would go against general policy of that time (such as the Hallstein doctrine)...

Of course, the DDR could have always just built another wall if the first one had been torn down but at least that would’ve given people the chance to pack their things and decide which side of Berlin they wanted to stay on, and to not be separated from their loved ones, right?

So why did the Berlin Wall stay put?

I'm not that versed in Chinese history, but, it seems to me that the empires that existed around the area always maintained their might via what essentially boils down to:

• Strong economy/trade
• Strong army
• A lot of local independence
• Advanced technology

There isn't a unifying language or culture that would hold people together, but it was easier to be ruled by the Dynasty than to fight them, especially when "ruled" often times didn't amount to any difference for either the subjects or the local rulers.

​

However, the China of post WW2 seemed to have had a strong grip on all the lands, despite seemingly having none of those advantages, as in, it's army was weak, it's economy was garbage, it didn't offer a lot of local independence and it was technologically behind by a few decades compared to most other global powers.

​

I perfectly understand how China is able to maintain it's territory nowadays, but I can't make sense how it was able to be unified in the mid 20th century under the CCP, granted, with fewer lands than those around the glory times of the Qing dynasty, but not significantly so (when you consider quality of land, not quantity alone).

​

Are there any books on this subject ? Or is it still too touchy for us to have a chance of getting a somewhat objective historical account (as in, not influenced by Western propaganda bolstering up the role of military oppression nor CCP propaganda focusing on portraying an exaggerated sense of national unity within the nation) ?

I know fleur de lis was born in 6th century Frankish Kingdom and used on several coat of arms. (Naples, Tuscany etc.) But these countries have connections with actual Franks and then French one way or another but I can't help but imagine what kind of relation is there between French and Bosniaks in Middle Ages? Maybe from Charlemagne's empire?

Sorry if my question is not clear. 1.What happened to the germanic tribes in northern Germany after the fall of the Roman Empire? 2.What was everyday life for a person in a germanic tribe even in the years 500BC-1000BC? 3.What languages did they spoke?

Sorry if the questions are dumb. I read about it on wiki, but everything made me so confused. 😳

Hello everyone I'm looking for types of medieval swords used by Croatian knights/soldiers used from year 850 to year 1100.

So I was reading about monitor class ships and how they had helped with the Race to the Sea in WWI, but what did they do after? Did the Germans make it all the way to the cost and if so, how did they avoid constant naval bombardment by the Royal Navy? Like, I know they made it to the coast, but were there German soldiers hanging out on the beaches NOT getting the shit shelled out of them by the RN? How did that happen if so? How did the Allies not exploit this gap if not?

Going to the Colosseum or Circus Maximus would not be a (regular) option for upper-class and wealthy provincials living in Britain, Spain, North Africa, etc. What kind of entertainments did people who were geographically remote from Rome but still able to afford leisure time enjoy, during the Roman Empire? Obviously it will vary a bit by area but I'm particularly interested in Roman Britain and Spain.

Was King Arthur even loosely based on a read person? If so who

How did the norse people tattoo themselves, are there any evidence of what form of Dye, or tools that were used to put tattoos on their bodies?

[deleted]

For example, the hieroglyphs were first translated in the 18th or 19th century. I know that the Rosetta Stone was used but having three different forms of a text (in my imagination) to translate a text whose language is pretty much lost completely. AFAIK the Egyptian language was already replaced by Arabic, meaning there were only distantly related languages to compare the text to. This would lead to customs being ignored, for example, as long as the topic stays the same, I don't need to mention it again in Japanese (I don't have to start every sentence with watashi ha, it is assumed after the first time sometimes even before that).

And how did we translate other texts like cuneiform?

Sorry if this breaks the rules - I've been reading up on the Habsburgs in my free time and there are aspects of their rule and realm that confuse me.

I am aware that Charles V split his kingdom between his brother (Austria) and his son (Spain, Italy). There then emerge several terms relating to this:

The Habsburg monarchy: referring to the rulers over the Archduchy of Austria - > Austrian Empire - > Austria Hungary

The Spanish Habsburgs: the rulers over the Spanish territories aka Spanish empire

The House of Habsburg: referring to both these branches but they also ruled the Holy Roman Empire for a period of time until its end (thanks to Napoleon), of which the Habsburg territories were partially within?

So was the emperor of the holy roman empire also the ruler of the austrian territories, the spanish territories, both, neither and was just another member in the family, or did this vary depending on who was elected emperor? And how did this arrangement of two overlapping empires work? Sorry if this is a vague question.

Do also let me know if my understanding of the various aspects of Habsburg rule as articulated above is correct

First of all, I am European, so I am asking this from the perspective of an outsider. Revolutions, in general, tend to be violent, Whether the result is positive or not, the development of revolutionary processes usually involves terror, purges, and fights between factions. Sometimes even ending in authoritarian governments (like the Russian or French ones). Why is the American Revolution different? (If there is a reason apart from simple chance). I do not see terror or crimes mentioned in books or documentaries, only minor "harassment". And Washington leaving power willingly, and a democratic system which still stands to this day seems odd to me. I just wanted a serious answer apart from "'cause Murica", out of curiosity.

[deleted]