I was just wondering today how city states expanded their walls. Did they have to knock them down and then build out further and start the new wall there, or did they plan ahead for this? Also wouldn’t this make them vulnerable? I mean I imagine it would be easier to take that city over while they were trying to expand their walls because of the gap. Just a random thought I had today.

Question inspired by a thread at the moment on r/history. I've looked at previous threads but the only concrete recommendations I can find are the general book list (which is much more zoomed in on specific issues) and a post which has now been deleted!

Is there a good single-volume book that is both historically accurate and accessible to a general audience?

At first glance, you wouldn't even associate the empire of Orthodox Christianity with the empire of Islam - both seem to be entirely different entities and in some ways, rightfully so.

But looking more in-depth at the two, isn't it safe to say that the Ottoman Empire more or less modelled itself after the Byzantine Empire? The Ottomans more or less copied the Byzantine administrative system and made a few slight alterations to suit their needs as a country at the time, but the whole bureaucratically-oriented way of managing the empire is so similar to what the Byzantines did before them that I'd say it's only different by name. I've also read somewhere I think that the whole taxing structure of the two empires was essentially identical.

This doesn't even mention the importance of Constantinople to both empires - to put it concisely, neither empire was able to function properly (or at all, even) without Constantinople as a financial/commercial/administrative centre. Constantinople was the city, not just to the Byzantines, but also to the Ottomans.

The similarities are fascinating to think about. For most of its history, the Ottoman Empire's territory was largely comprised of the Byzantine Empire's territory around the time of Theodosius the First's death + parts of Arabia and Lybia. Even in regards to the population, it's very likely that your average (Anatolian) Ottoman citizen of the 19th century probably had a lineage that was Greek in origin (which featured ancestors that had converted to Islam and had adopted the Turkish language at some point).

So, how accurate is all of the above and what are some ways in which the Ottomans did/didn't take after the Byzantines?

[deleted]

In America, minority communities like Jews, the Irish, and African Americans emigrated westward pretty early to escape discrimination and take part in the colonial settlement project. However, it seems that the Russian Empire did the opposite. Rather than allow Jews to participate in the ongoing settlement of the Russian Far East, they were relegated to regions that had historically had a significant Jewish presence.

I understand that antisemitism and other forms of ethnic hatred are rarely logical, but I'm not sure why the Tsar decided to keep a maligned minority concentrated in one part of the country.

So off the bat, I know the North East of the US has more historical economic development than that of the South as countless immigrants worked their way into the US via Ellis Island and the like...

That being said, we know that the South of the US is far more economically depressed than that of their northern brethren.

Has there been any studies, papers, etc. that can point to the South's history of racism being a component of its lack of economic progress? More to the point, is it the general unwelcoming attitude of the South that caused it, did companies/industries refuse to do business there, ect.?

Hello everyone, I am writing an essay on who King Scorpion II was. I was wondering if any one had any links to any scholarly articles to help me get started, thanks.

I've been reading and watching videos about Mesoamerica a little lately, one point that was raised was that it was more difficult for people like the Aztecs to project power far from their core territories in part because almost everything had to be carried under human labour. It is said that this meant campaigns could only last a few months maximum and supply lines were very short in comparison to the old world, and that this might account for things like the relative looseness of things like the Aztec empire more as collection of vassal states giving tribute to the hegemonic Tenochtitlan than a proper empire you might see elsewhere despite it's relatively small size compared to, say, the Roman empire or something.

I'm just curious if this a particularly accurate analysis and what exactly the repercussions were around the lack of animal power which seems so omnipresent in the rest of the world. I've also heard that one of the things that made the Incas so far reaching in comparison was heavy use of Llamas, which would seem to imply that animals, or lack thereof, had a pretty big constraining effect on Mesoamerican cultures, but that might be beyond the scope of this question.

Why does the US not use the metric system? If our country was based off of a British colony wouldn't we use their system? Was it imperial back then? And if so why did we stick with it.

How much was it worth and how much could you buy with it?

[deleted]

My English class, hear me out, is having a unit dedicated too World War Two. ITS NOT HOMEWORK. Its school work. I am doing a PowerPoint presentation on how Naval superiority was proven in certain missions or battles. How should I start it? Should I tell them the types of ships, maybe the naval strength? I would love to hear from you guys.

Why was the location for Washington D.C. chosen as the capital of the US if it seemed to be such a vulnerable location? Being on the coast seemed like a good way to get the city quickly attacked in the event of a war, especially against a nation that could have a much stronger navy, at least early on the America's history. An example would obviously be The War of 1812. So why didn't they make the capital further inland where it would be safer?

Hi everyone. I am researching a topic for a paper that could be one day turn into an actual marine archeological site. Just some background. I studied ancient Middle Eastern cultures as my specific area. Ancient Sumerian, Assyrian, Hitties, etc... you get the point. I moved on to the medieval age and one of my all time favorites was the Al Andalus and the story of Amir Abd al-Rahman. That’s where the Vikings enter my research. I moved forward towards the raiding era of the Vikings. I thought it was incredible the extent they had extended their raiding abilities. When reading historical documents that back up the presence of the Vikings on their way out of the Mediterranean showed (since we don’t know if Bjorn ironside existed or not) they were attacked. many ships that were filled with plunder sank. I have been researching into the fact that no one has looked for these ships in the strait of Gibraltar to my knowledge. Is anyone aware if they have made these discoveries? This is the focus of my paper. I want to show that they maybe sitting where they sank at the bottom of the strait off the coast of southern Spain. Understandably I am hoping it is on the coastal area compared directly in the middle of the strait.

Not 100% sure this is the right place to ask this, but if it's not, please let me know. I want to get my MA in (medieval) history, but due to my job and location, online courses would be ideal for me. I'm having trouble finding schools that have such programs though. I was wondering if any of you know where I could do this, or if you had done it yourself and have any advice? Thank you.