My question has multiple parts. First off, what convinced the Tsar to sell Alaska at all? I know the bountiful resources of Alaska weren’t quite discovered yet, but was the place truly considered useless to them? I know the guy who was behind the purchase on the US side got ridiculed for it but what about the Russian side? The second part is, why did they sell to the US specifically? Surely UK was interested considering Alaska borders Canada. Spain or France probably wouldn’t want it but were they even considered? Lastly, did Russia or SU ever regret losing it? Surely the Soviet Union would have loved to have had a giant base of operations on the continent right?

Spanish: Dios

Greek: Zeus/Zeu pater (Father Zeus)

Chinese: Zhǔ (主)

Proto-Indo-European: Dyeu-peter (Sky Father)

Roman/Latin: Jupiter/Iupeter

Sanskrit: Dyaus pitar (heavenly father)

Vedic: Dyaus Pita

Norse: Allfather/Alföðr/Odin

I am an ethnic Chinese who is way more familiar with Chinese history. In Chinese history, the end of a Dynasty was often very dramatic. When the Song Dynasty fell, the Prime Minister grab the child Emperor and commit suicide by jumping into the sea. When the Ming Dynasty fell, Chongzhen Emperor commit suicide by hanging.

However, it seems that this is not the case for the end of Roman Empire. From Wikipedia, Odoacer just forced the child Emperor to abdicate, and made no attempt to be be next Roman Emperor. As a non-historian, the Roman Empire just sort of disintegrated from within rather than conquered by another state. Why is that?

According to SHEG, "While almost all people of Japanese ancestry who lived in California, Oregon, and Washington were relocated those living in Hawaii were not. However, martial law was placed in Hawaii."

Army of Northern Virginia vs the Army of the Potomac

Army of Tennessee vs the Army of the Tennessee

Also why was it the Army of New Mexico when the claimed territory was Confederate Arizona?

Something I realized at the library looking at old atlases, is how accurate they are with shapes. You wouldn’t thing think that someone would be able to accurately depict the shape of the world in the 1940s, let’s alone the 1850s. How did they do this? It’s absolutely baffling

I’ve just finished watching “The Patriot” for what seems like the 20th time and I found myself wondering what happened to those loyal to the British Crown after the US won independence after the war. I’ve heard about the statistic that 20% were patriots (of whom 3% actually took up arms), 20% were loyalists, and the remaining colonists were neutral. I am also aware that were probably regional differences in how they were treated. Any answers would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

In other words, how weird was it at the time for Jesus to proclaim himself not only a prophet, but the son of God? Were miracle-workers a commonplace thing at all? Does Jesus just happen to be the one self-described prophet who got popular, or was he a truly unique case?

Obviously Jesus' claims, and the records of his life in the Gospels, are remarkable. He is historically treated to be distinct from other cases of prophets because of his self-described status as the son of God- it's one thing to be more connected to the divine, and it's quite another to literally be the divine on Earth. Obviously this claim resulted in him being crucified. But was there a cultural precedent for "prophets" at the time?

edit: a further clarifying question would be: did other people proclaim themselves to be the Messiah at the time? Is Jesus just the one guy doing this who saw the most popularity?

For example, when did let’s say Forest dwellers who lived in Germany organize and become Germanic tribes, and how did other European groups develop to barbarian status?

I’m writing my senior thesis on the US assessment on the KMT and Chiang Kai-shek. I have a lot of primary sources from journalists who were with the KMT themselves and I was told there are journalists who were with the PLA. I was told that they were influenced by officials in the PLA and CCP to talk crap on the KMT and why the CCP and PLA were way better. Does anybody know a good book by these journalists?

I'm currently doing some research into the role of British film propaganda in downplaying some of the social tensions that existed in the country during the war, but so far I've only come across one book that describes these social tensions in detail (Sonya Rose's excellent 'Which People's War? National Identity and Citizenship in Wartime Britain, 1939 - 1945). Can anyone suggest any other places I should look?

One thing I do hear a lot about WW2 is how it created, for lack of a better phrase "war solidarity" amongst the populace - people were more united and internal conflicts less common. The Nazis promotion of the volksgemeinschaft concept could be seen as a form of this (and I have heard that the promotion of the volksgemeinschaft concept was why there wasn't the mass rebellion you saw in Germany at the end of WW1. I hear about how people were more self-sacrificing and friendlier and the like. There was a book published which, if I remember correctly, argued that WW2 helped ease out social differences between white Americans (the various ethnic groups), who had previously distrusted each other a lot (between WASPs and Southern European Catholics, for example), as well as helping pave the way for the Civil Rights movement.

However I also have heard claims that solidarity wasn't really that common - different social classes still hated each other and class conflict never abated, different ethnic/racial/religious groups still massively despised each other and that the idea of wartime solidarity and national unity was really more propaganda that, while it may have had a grain of truth, was largely fabricated - most people did not feel any sense of social solidarity.

Now this latter claim is rather jarring since it contradicts a lot of what I hear about the war but at the same time I also know that propaganda of the era tried to avoid encouraging divisions at home and so may have downplayed any. So I guess my question is "to what extent did WW2 actually create any sense of social solidarity in the participant countries (and what differences were there between nations)?"

To explain, it wasn't that long ago that humans walked alongside mammoths and smilodons. Is there any sort of evidence that humans from early civilization had any knowledge of these animals, through oral tradition or whatever?

Hello,

How did Pictish Nobility work?

In particular, I'm looking for the following titles -

​

A landholding (like an estate), the direct word for it in "Pictish"

A shire

​

then for noble titles:

High King

King

Prince

Regional Leader (earl)

Landholder (Thegn)

Mayor

Household Troop (Teulu, Hearthguard, Huskarl)

Police

Warrior

Peasant

​

Thank you

​

Apologies if this question is not keeping with the rules of this sub - but it is something I've always wondered about. I remember reading a statistic that said Finland had the highest amount of metal bands per capita than any other nation in the world.

​

A few explanation that I've read include the fact that Scandinavia is a wintry landscape for the most part, and that there's really nothing else to do but to play music, or that the climate plays a large part in creating the moody prerequisites for metal music. Could it have something to do with culture?

So the initial Muslim conquests stripped the Eastern Roman empire of Syria, Palestine and Egypt in quick succession. As far as I know the Byzantine reconquest during the late 900s restored permanent rule only to Antioch. What stopped the byzantines from capturing Jerusalem or sacking Baghdad? Hadn't the Abbasid caliphate fractured by that point?

Also a related sub question: before the rise of Islam the Roman empire had the concept of pentarchy as the five centres of the Christian world. Since in the 900s three of the cities were then under Muslim rule (Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem), did restoring the pentarchy (politically) factor in Byzantine strategy at that time?