[deleted]

Basically, has knowledge of metallurgy, manufacturing, and mechanics improved enough in that timespan that a cheaply-made sword now would surpass a well-made one from a long time ago?

Did people earn money and purchase things like we do today? Or was the concept of money and ownership much different then?

I wanted to learn more about socialism, marxism etc. Of course it's a subject that's been heavily discussed for over a century. Let's be honest, it's a subject full of propaganda. What we're taught at school is influenced by propaganda. What people were taught in Eastern Bloc was influenced by other propaganda. Additionaly there's an issue of external propaganda.

Examples:

• Many people believe Russia and USSR had almost nothing good. While USSR and satelltie state had it's challenges being the less industrial region (and a regime), it wasn't as bad as most people believe. In fact, I can surely say some countries got better (eg. Poland with universal education and healthcare where pre-war government has failed)
• People point out deaths of people but are not even aware of eg. Bengal famine that was pretty much artificial (easily avoidable).
• At the same time we know of other atrocities done by US government, they're just not really taught to anyone eg. FBI and crack in ghettos, war on drugs to fight minorities and political opponents etc.

So if I can't be sure of anything I was taught up to this point, that it wasn't overly simplified or a half-truth, how the hell do I know I can trust certain sources. How do I know what Stalin, Mao and other socialist/marxist regimes have not actuallly been cool? Eg. how do I really know Holodomor was artificial and not due to poor governance, if I was also taught that Stalin didn't push into Warsaw (because fuck Poles), whiel the truth is that it was mostly (or solely) because Red Army needed a logistical break (also applies to Bengal famine). How do I know socialsit states, despite their clear authoritarianism, werent actually somewhat good places considering their situation? As a Pole I was taught that pre-war Poland was such a cool place, except now I've been learning that it wasn't really, not for average Kowalski.

So how do I find unbiased information without having to sacrifice my whole life? I have a limited amount of time and energy. Obviously I mean just historical stuff, so at worst events from past century. It's so easy to fall into trap of believing false information ebcause someone gives explanation and omits important details that may change how we view certain things.

TLDR: How do I actually know Stalin wasn't just a murderous prick as most believe, and his actions weren't what had to" be done by anyone else in his position?

Edit they*

Pictures and movies of times prior to WW2 show men wearing hats. What killed the hat as something you would not leave home without? I'm guessing WW2 and not hat head.

When I think dogs in pre-columbian I think of two things: Huskies in the Artic and Chihuahuas in Central America. But, this seems to narrow to be true, right? Also as a follow-up, how far did turkeys/llamas spread from their respective areas of domestication?

I'm curious about whether there were stories told or lessons drawn about how well one did against the other in battle or combat.

Was it expected or unusual for the two weapons to fight each other?

Was there also a social class element at play that might affect the answers to these questions?

For context - not discussion in breach of the 20 year rule! - this question is inspired by the contemporary claim that to prevent climate change, we need to overthrow capitalism, as profit-seeking through exploitation of natural resources renders a solution under capitalism impossible. This recently got me wondering about what the environmental record of Eastern Bloc countries under socialism was actually like in practice. Were socialist governments better at protecting the environment than their capitalist counterparts?

Cold War-era Europe/North America seems the most straightforward framework through which to answer comparatively, but would be interested to hear about comparisons in Latin America/Africa/Asia if someone has the knowledge!

To my understanding, feudalism in Europe and Japan shared many key similarities, but developed during times of relatively little contact between the two regions. Were there similar conditions that caused the development of feudalism in those regions but not others? Was one inspired by the other?

Across the world, particularly at around the same time as Jim Crow or Apartheid, was there any form of legal segregation that might not get talked about as much? I'm just curious, because all we ever talk about are those two countries, and I find it hard to believe that this wasn't a wider spread phenomenon.

I see a lot of stuff about how Spears are pound for pound the strongest melee weapon out there, save for specific circumstances. What I have to wonder is if that is the case why do swords and axes and such all seem so prevalent in history as opposed to everybody just working on better spears and going to town?

(I know only the basics about European colonisation of the Americas btw)

I've recently been watching youtube videos on European colonisation and it seems to me that one of the main contributing factors to the successful colonisation is that the Natives tended to die from the diseases brought to them by the Europeans, who were immune to the diseases.

I've recently developed an interest for history, and while reading Mary Beard's "SPQR: A History of Ancient Rome", a question has been walking around in my head that's always bothered me. How does she find her sources? There's a great deal of thought and research put into her book, and I've always been fascinated how people of a similar interest or occupation find the sources and information they need.

​

So is there an exact or general process as to how this is done? And either way, is there a way for someone who is not in a good position to find or even afford books and physical material, to do such a process?

Currently about 1% of Brazil's population is of Japanese descent, representing a disproportionate amount of Japan's overseas population. How did this come to happen in Brazil specifically, rather than other south American countries or just anywhere else in general?

Both the Balkans and Anatolia became core regions of the Ottoman Empire. Both started as Orthodox Christian populations with a Roman identity, speaking non-Turkish languages. Anatolia overwhelmingly became Muslim and identified with the Turkish language. The Balkans only did in tiny amounts. I know the first was under Ottoman control longer, but it seems this does not explain the difference, as Anatolia converted faster than the Balkans was under Ottoman rule.

So what explains the difference?

During the early renaissance, social hierarchy based on wealth became more prominent, but at the same time a poor nobleman still had a higher social status than a rich merchant. So how did the nobility maintain this hierarchy?

Do we know if the earliest civilizations had records of even earlier civilizations?

We might not have anything about the civilizations before Aztecs but we might have what Aztecs had?