I'm new to Japanese history and recently picked up the Historical Fiction book Taiko by Eiji Yoshikawa. A few examples of Seppuku presents itself, but I find some of the reasons baffling and I'm now fully aware just how much I don't understand about Japanese culture!

A great example is when Hirate Kiyohide tires of admonishing his master Nobunaka over and over again about his childish behaviour, so he commits Seppuku to give Nobunaka a real lesson. I don't understand how Kiyohide concludes that his own suicide will fix Nobunaka's behaviour. It's like, trying to prove someone a point by killing yourself. But now you're dead so....did you even win that argument?

Can someone just explain to me the history and what their thought process is with all this?

I don't know if their commitment to a pious life stopped them from forming close friendships but it seems unlikely that a monk living in the same monastery for most his life (assuming thats what happened ) would not start to form friendship if not familial ties to his fellow monastic "brothers". Do we have any records of this? How did this relations affect day to day life? Did they have any outside relations as many monasteries were integrated to the surrounding communities? If the sources arnt available for my time frame, the question can open up to any time in history.

I get that the defeat of the Armada crushed Spain and they receded from power in Europe. But why did they never resurge and join the other powerful nations of Western Europe as a world power? They’ve had hundreds of years to rebuild?!?! And why didn’t they participate in any major wars in the 19th or 20th century?

I’ve taken a lot of world/European history classes and this has always confused me.

If not, what were the advantages of the Macedonian Phalanx?

I don't know if this violates the rules for modern events or soapboxing, but it seems like a large portion of history programming is dedicated to fringe history, pseudo history, and pop history. A few of shows even try to present the academic establishment as "eletist" for doubting them, which are very similar to the pseudo-scientific attitudes that have manifested in modern politics. Shows like America Unearthed, Ancient Aliens, UFO files, and the recent Solutrean Hypothesis documentary are all examples of this.

Are historians aware of how prevalent this is? How do they try to combat it?

[deleted]

[deleted]

Or did he take more of a commander's role, and stay back, giving moral support to the troops? Also, what was the life expectancy in that area of the world at the time?

Whenever I see ilustrations of ancient city-states or medieval castle towns, I see a similar picture. A walled semi-urban structure surrounded by huge plots of agricultable land. I wonder, in case of an attack wouldnt the lord of the lard or ruler want to protect its farmland aswell? Wouldnt it be against his interests if a warband burned his fields and killed cattle? I know that building stone walls around the entirety of the rural areas would be impossibly expensive but why we never see large palisade walls or defensive structures around farmlands?

In "Federalist 10" James Madison goes over the various "immoral or wicked projects" a faction leader could incite the people to support. Amongst these, he includes "A rage for paper money". Why was Madison wary of popular support for paper money? Was there popular support for paper money at the time?

[deleted]

[deleted]

Side note: The assassin, Ahn Jung Geun, is my thrice great uncle. I'm trying to learn more about him and what drove him to do the things he did. His motives for killing Ito have always confused me but I'm sure the situation was far more complicated than I realize.

Not sure if this sort of question is permitted on this subreddit, but recently, I was looking into getting Mary Beard's SPQR: A History of Ancient Rome. Is this particular book a good comprehensive text on Rome, or are there better alternatives?
Mind you, I'm not looking to get an incredibly nuanced, multi-volume set on Rome. I'm looking for a broad but detailed book on Rome.

Thanks!

Why did Charles manage to trust the people who previously plundered his land and what did his vassals think of giving such a large land mass to a pagan outsiders?

I've been reading Fighting the Great War at Sea by Norman Friedman, and he mentions in it that only the chancellor had the power to submit laws to be debated in the Reichstag, and that the Reichstag did not now the power to rescind any laws, so I'm also curious if those claims are true - and it just made me realize I don't really know what the structure of the German government was truly like in the period, and how the structure of the government affected the lives of the people within Germany.

I have heard that there was a time (e.g.: 120 BC) when the Romans had a large influx of slaves, which surely displaced many in the labor market. I am sure there is a parallel to be drawn with modern times and the potential displacement of workers due to automation. My question is this: what sources can I read that might shed light on this by explaining the economic and social effects in Rome and perhaps drawing an analogy to modern times.