Hello all, I just started watching Peaky Blinders and it made me curious about something. What would be the most popular and most common style of beer in England in the early 20th century (say around 1920). I was wondering if a wide variety of beers styles would be available at that time. If they had similar styles to what you can find today (IPA, lagers, porters, stouts), would they taste similar to what you can find at most liquor stores in the United States, or would they taste very different? Was the manufacturing process also similar to what we do today? Thanks in advance!

I am tasked with writing a paper about the the key motivating factors behind the american revolution. The options are; Political factors, economic factors, or idealogical factors. I chose ideological, so I am looking for materials that get into the revolution from an ideological perspective. I already have Beyond the Revolution by William H. Goetzmann on my list...so i suppose I only need 4 more titles. Anyway, any help would be appreciated.

[deleted]

[deleted]

Alternatively, what was the first ever diss track?

The movie suggests that a couple of Texas Rangers, going on tracking skills, long experience, and hunches, working fairly independently, accomplished what a "1000 man dragnet" was unable to do. That's such a common Hollywood trope - is that for real?

And Hamer's conversation with Clyde's father - any basis in fact?

Hey all!

So obviously this is going to be different for each leader throughout the history of the USSR, and the question is pretty open in terms of how it could be answered.

Also, it's pretty obvious someone like Lenin was ideologically committed considering it was in a lot of ways HIS revolution. Some people would argue Stalin wasn't so much, however, I think Stephen Kotkin does a good job arguing he was ideologically committed but also extremely pragmatic.

When it comes to post-Stalin leaders I really have a hard time finding any historical information on how much true ideological commitment factored into Soviet leaders decision making, however. While they obviously put on a face of being devout Marxist-Leninists, whether this was just used as an excuse to hold power (similar to modern China) or true ideological commitment is hard to find out. Considering there were some pretty big splits between communist nations in the cold war over this very question (Sino-Soviet split, Soviet-Albanian split, etc.) it seems like this is an extremely historically relevant topic that is also very difficult to find good information on.

If anyone has any good sources for historians diving into the question of how much ideological commitment played into the decision making of the upper levels of Soviet society I would love to hear it, thank you and have a great day!

Other than the Yuan and Qing dynasty ruled by complete foreigners, I’ve heard Qin rulers were not Hans and were mixed with Xirong (western nomads). Also, Northern Wei, Sui And Tang were ruled by Xianbei or at least people with mixed Xianbei/Han blood. Can someone verify this

How often did armies lived off the ground of the nation they were invading?

I'm asking especially about the state-wide persecutions from the mid 200s onward, less about the earlier more limited ones.

I find it ironic that the first universalist religion doesn't accept converts today, what happened?, but most importantly, when?

A huge amount of African countries today are considered "francophone", with large amounts of the population speaking French. This is due to France's colonial past.

Since Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia used to be French colonies as well (French Indochina), why isn't the language more dominant? Was French ever prevalent in these countries the same way it was in Africa?

Hi everyone,

​

A question that has been bugging me for a while now - now surely Portugal and Spain ended up colonising South America for a number of reasons (ocean currents, Portugal's searoute to India, etc.), but was climate "familiarity" one of them?

​

Now, Portugal and Spain are by no means tropical countries (and, as far as I know, it is thought that both Portugal and Spain were considerably colder during the middle ages, snow being a common feature in Northern Iberia), but they're considerably warmer than other territories in Central and Northern Europe.

​

Portugal, specifically, I have learned, even settled a few fishing villages in current day Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, Canada (e.g. St. Peter, St. Philip, St. John), during the 16th century - but quickly abandoned any attempt at claiming today's Canadian territory once Brazilian colonisation was in full motion.

​

When you think that the Azores is closer to North America than South America, was colonised shortly before the discovery of America, and even ended up playing a major role in the Caribbean/North American trade decades/centuries later, it does seem odd (to me) that Portugal, in specific, did not even bother with North America.

​

Was climate a factor in this decision? I can imagine a Southern Portuguese seaman would struggle when faced with the Canadian winter, and Iberian crops wouldn't exactly thrive in Canada's permafrost.

​

I guess the question can also be rephrased as follows: was Portugal and Spain's focus on exploitation colonialism vs. settler colonialism somehow affected by climate?

​

Thanks!

and was that spy accepted?

[deleted]