Was there citizens of Alaska back then? Did the people in Alaska become American citizens or did they have to move? Both? I’ve tried googling this but there isn’t much info out there.

In fantasy/medieval themed video games and tv shows, we often see sarcastic characters making witty remarks. I was wondering when sarcasm became a part of humour, and if media likes to write characters that appeal to modern sense of humor rather than even remotely historically accurate ones.

Modern Korean food is very spicy and relies a lot on hot peppers. But the pepper is native to the Americas. How would their food be seasoned before the Columbian Exchange?

By this, I mean why did pre-Modern China (from the Shang Dynasty to the fall of the Qing Dynasty) succeed in being able to hold onto their Empire despite most Dynasties falling in a couple of centuries, while Rome was unable to retake their Western half and eventually declined until the fall of Constantinople?

Hey guys,

​

I was wondering why the number of confirmed kills to be called an ace was set pretty low.

For example to become a german ace you had to have 5 kills. After a quick google search i found roughly 300/400 names of aces.

If i am correct being called an ace was mostly for the propaganda. So why was it set it so low?

​

thanks in advance.

(sorry for any grammer or spelling errors, english isnt my first language)

A lot of communists tend to say that it was just a bad harvest that caused it. I have no sources of myself so are they right?

Little seems to have been written about how the European and Asian Axis Powers helped eachother or at least tried to against the Allies, who worked as a coordinated coalition. I know that during the 1930s Germany tried to make pacts with both Japan and China, but beyond Hitler's deceleration of war against the United States after Pearl Harbour I don't know of any transfer of materials, technology or intelligence etc between Tokyo and Berlin. Was this simply an alliance on paper or not?

Looking for recommendations for some good books about Mongol Empire.

So far I've got:

The Barbarian Empires of the Steppes by Kenneth W. Harl

Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World by Jack Weatherford

​

Thanks!

As dictator, shouldn't Caesar have had at least 24 lictors protecting him at all times (since Sulla had dispensed with the stipulation that only 12 lictors were to accompany a dictator within Rome, I assume Caesar likewise ignored that restriction)? If the lictors were there, how did the senators manage to not only kill Caesar, but not be killed themselves right afterward? If the lictors weren't there, why weren't they there?

Bayezid being able to muster a nearly 90 000 men force to fight Timur in Ankara while the French and Holy Roman Empire (arguably Europe's most populated realms) struggled to muster 30 000 for a single battle never ceases to amaze me. A similar amount besieging Constantinople in 1453 and several other cases cross my mind. Was it because of the Ghazi warrior culture? Because of conscription? Was it because the large amounts of Turkic nomads living in central Anatolia (most of whom could fight on horseback)?

As far as I can remember that large, clumsy, personal "guns" first appeared in Europe at some time around the 14th century in some limited capacity. I seem to remember though that cannons/simple large artillery were around earlier, as well as explosives? I could be completely mistaken, but I can't shake the feeling that some of my likely b.s. is true? At what point from their introduction did they become very popular and common artillery pieces?

I am learning about the Sunni/Shi'a conflict now, and the fact that this major sectarian divide is caused by a power struggle thousands of years ago seems too simplified to me. Are there other reasons why this divide is so large, such as prejudice, war, strife and religious difference?

Found a question in AP material that asked whether the Vietnam War was more akin to the Korean War (the US fighting against the spread of communism. This was the right answer), or the Revolutionary War (North Vietnam fighting for their independence). I understand why it’s closer to the first answer, but I still asked to make sure that was right. My teacher said it was NOT for Vietnamese independence, while I argued that we were an extension (or continuation) of foreign occupation after the French left. Which they wanted independence from.

Opinions? Sources? I’d like to get a better idea if I’m wrong, and I’d like to prove that I’m right if I am. Thanks guys.

I understand that the differences may not be that small in this case, but I would like someone more knowledgeable about this subject.

It always seemed to me that the Eastern Roman armies, even during the Macedonian Re-Conquests, were a tad undermanned. Not that Roman Republican armies were that monstruous, but I hardly find any episode comparable to the 86 000 men the Republic fielded in the Battle of Carrhae, or how they kept spamming legions until they defeated Hannibal.

Some people have told me that they were baffled at how Heraclius' Empire was unable to train/field more capable armies after it's defeat in Yarmouk, even up to the point of claiming that the Roman Republic of Scipio would have defeated the first Caliphate and retook the lost Roman Provinces. I get that such an assertion is oversimplifying matters, but then I would like someone more knowledgeable to explain it to me.

I've read and know a good bit about church history, and have a pretty good big-picture grasp on things like the pope, or the crusades, or cathedrals, but I feel like I'm missing a lot of the picture of the day to day practices and beliefs of common people. Like, how did they worship? How often? Where would they have worshipped? How would "pagan" practices be received? How was popular religiosity different from what we'd find today?

I understand that monasticism played a prominent role. What would a typical person's relationship to monastic Christianity look like?

Were they made of iron? And if so, how did they keep everything from rusting?

So, I read in a pop-history magazine about the Viking settlement of Vinland, most of which was run of the mill knowledge, but at some point the article mentioned a bishop named "Erik Gnupsson" who travelled to Vinland on a mission in 1121. The article claimed to the natives, the Wikipedia article claims to a viking settlement - although as far as I know there was no existant viking settlement in the 12th century, right?

The article goes on to mention a Norwegian silver coin found in modern Maine which shows Olaf III. who reigned until 1093, and how the settlers of Iceland and Greenland would have no such coins as there was no use for them, so they deem it plausible that this coin belonged to Erik Gnupsson, as a bishop might well posess silver coins. But does the coin being found in Maine imply that Erik travelled this far south? Or were native american trade routes extensive enough for the coin to travel there on its own from Newfoundland?