I’m not talking your run of the mill “idiot” or “loser”... I’m talking “N word for white people” type slurs. If medieval times is too specific, when did the first slurs start going around?

This is more of an ELI5 Question but I wasn't allowed to ask it there 😶 So here goes - Like I know she obviously must have German ancestry but how did her family end up ruling Britain? When did the English monarchy stop being English exactly?

[deleted]

How much worse was it than the Nazi's?

For context, I'm trying to understand the extent to which these passages from Mearscheimer matters:

Stalin ruthlessly but effectively modernized the Soviet economy in the 1930s, so that by the start of World War II Germany enjoyed only a modest advantage in wealth over the Soviet Union (see Table 3.3). 48 Thus, the Soviet war economy was able to compete effectively with the German war economy in World War II. Indeed, the Soviets outproduced the Germans in virtually every category of military weaponry for the years from 1941 through 1945: 1) The Soviet Union produced 102,600 airplanes; Germany produced 76,200. 2) The Soviet Union produced 1,437,900 machine guns; Germany produced 1,048,500. 3) The Soviet Union produced 11,820,500 rifles; Germany produced 7,845,700. 4) The Soviet Union produced 92,600 tanks; Germany produced 41,500. 5) The Soviet Union produced 350,300 mortars; Germany 68,900. 49 No wonder the Red Army defeated the Wehrmacht on the eastern front. 50 [...]

Germany controlled some 36 percent of European wealth by 1940, while the Soviet Union possessed about 28 percent (see Table 3.3). In the spring of 1940, Germany conquered Belgium, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, and Norway and immediately began exploiting their economies, adding to its wealth advantage over the Soviet Union. 65 The Wehrmacht then invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941, and within six months Germany controlled almost all Soviet territory west of Moscow, which was prime real estate. By late 1941, the Soviet Union had lost territory that held 41 percent of its railway lines, 42 percent of its electricity-generating capacity, 71 percent of its iron ore, 63 percent of its coal, and 58 percent of its capacity to make crude steel. 66 In the spring of 1942, the Nazi war machine further extended its reach by driving deep into the oil-rich Caucasus region. The Soviet Union lost roughly 40 percent of its national income between 1940 and 1942. 67 Germany appears to have held more than a 3:1 advantage in economic might over the Soviet Union by 1942 (see Table 3.4). Despite Germany’s profound advantage in latent power, the Soviet war economy amazingly outproduced the German war economy over the course of the war and helped shift the balance of power in the Red Army’s favor. As described earlier, the Soviet Union produced 2.2 times as many tanks as Germany and 1.3 times as many airplanes between 1941 and 1945. What is most astonishing is that the Soviets even outproduced the Germans in the early years of the war, when German control of Soviet territory was at its peak and the Allied bombing campaign was having barely any effect on the German war economy. The Soviet Union, for example, produced 24,446 tanks in 1942; Germany produced 9,200. The ratio of artillery pieces for 1942 was 127,000 to 12,000 in the Soviets’ favor. 68 This asymmetry in weapons production eventually led to a significant Soviet advantage in the balance of ground forces. When Germany invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941, the Soviets had a slight advantage in number of divisions—211:199—the key indicator of military strength. By January 1945, however, there were 473 Soviet divisions and only 276 German divisions, and the average Red Army division was far better equipped with weapons and vehicles than the average Wehrmacht division. 69

Somebody posted this statement in a facebook discussion and I was just curious about the veracity of this claim.

I know they could levy men from their conquered lands, but how willing would those men to be to fight for their conquerors? Things like Alexander's conquest, how was he able to continuously put together able armies in every region that he conquered and on every front? The Mongols also come to mind, how were they able to keep conquering, surely they did not use just the same armies as they started out with? But who would want to fight FOR the Mongols after they had been conquered by them?

I know journalism reports on what is actually happening, but I was wondering what role and practices do historias have when an event is over, in order to document it without much time passing afterwards.

My curiosity was sparked because of posts and answers that have dealt with the passing of time from events happening, to historic sources documenting them long aftwerward. I know current technology allows for a lot of information to be kept with redundancy, but it still a lot to handle and also probably a lot of useless/biased/false information in there.

I'm also curious because a lot of questions deal with long time ago things.

Also as a follow-up, how long is usually considered the enough minimum (if there is any) after an event to consider it finally over and studied by historians (don't know if it's even a correct question to ask or if this comes from personal misconceptions), without risk of it or its direct aftermath be something that is still going on?

I know he contributed to our understanding of the universe but practically speaking, how much did he really change the world/history? E.g. I often see him credited as contributing to the end of WWII but did we really NEED the math to build the bomb?

I'm sure variants of this question are often asked here, please try to help me out if possible. When it comes to Roman and Greek Mythology or even other nations, take Bablyonians etc. I am confused between what the authors knew to be true and what they knew to be fiction. Let's say for example when some Greek or Roman author was talking about the Age of Heroes, was that ancient history to them already? How far back did they think the Gods were here on Earth? When those writers started talking about Gods like Zeus etc, did they knowingly get those stories from somewhere and did they believe them to be true or were they just knowingly writing stories of fiction for reading and lessons teaching sake. This part of history is so far away to me that it's hard for me to distinguish between what was reality, what was fiction and what people of those times knew was reality and fiction. Now, I realize I'm mixing up a lot of different things, i realize a lot of these stories are hundreds of years apart, and I realize that you realize that I don't know what I'm talking about. So please do me a favor and read between my own lines and try to talk the answer I know some of you have already dealt with before. I can't seem to find it. Please put me on the right path. Thank you.

As I understand it, in medieval times, long scale travel was extremely expensive and impractical especially if you weren't in any sort of position of wealth and power. So how did performing the Hajj work in this era of isolation?

Two years before the Great Schism, the Archbishop of Canterbury was excommunicated and his position invalidated. I'm not sure, but it sounds like King Edward the confessor was under this bull too, and the Norman invasion essentially a crusade. At the same time, Edward and his ancestors had begun using more Greek and Byzantine titles, like EADWARDI ANGLORVM BASILEI, and it seems like a significant English migration occurred to Constantinople as these ties grew, or at least a "New England" after the Norman invasion. That and the Varangian membership that the English may have enjoyed in part?

So my question is, given this shift towards the East, and the excommunication that both were under, how true is it that England was heading towards, or actually was, Orthodox instead of Catholic in the decades between the Great Schism and the Norman Conquest?

Ultimately, the Normans invaded, replaced the bishops and kings, and integrated them back into Catholicism. But I was curious of the in-situ feelings they had of their own identity.

I have never heard of a prophet women. Why?

I'm reading both that it was quite insignificant, and that it made D-Day possible. So what's the actual academic consensus?

Demographics such as population size, army size, etc etc.

I’d also appreciate sources!

So, bear with me here, I'm a bit of an ignorant American! Like most Americans I assume, I didn't quite know the exact scale of the EU, or quite how close it actually made all of Europe. I occasionally heard about it, and thought it might be something similar in power to NATO, a regulatory organization, not a literal elective parliment that governs the entirety of the countries in the EU. It seems that after its formation, the war prone countries began to see themselves as less of their own ethnicities, and more so as "Europeans" in general. It astounded me how far the EU has gone in uniting Europe, and what it's done for some of their economies. If my understanding is correct, it practically made all of Europe into one large country, with a bunch of independent states. So I suppose my question is this: Why, given how wide the EU's range is, is it not held to a higher regard? We love and mystify old empires like Rome and the HRE, but it seems like most of the world is fairly "take it or leave it" with the modern EU. Heck, as an American I'm almost certain that none of my social studies teachers have even brought it up. Thanks Reddit historians!

I found this: " Nevertheless, it seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion.

“Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.”

US Strategic Bombing Survey of Japan Summary Report, 1 July 1946, p.26 paras. 7–8."
So was nuking really needed?

I included the tag [META] as I was unsure what else to put as this is not your average "historical" question, and I am unsure of the reddit rules on this.

​

To put it short, I'm in the process of writing a game along the lines of "Theme Hospital" or "Theme Park" (if you remember those ;) A quick google search would give you an idea - they're basically management simulations). This game, is about the management and running of an Academy. What I thought would be *really* cool, is if one could have reddit integrations to subs like this one (highly moderated), and have it various questions that are asked here (using up-votes on both the post and the top comment as a guide), to provide some cursory text during the "lessons" in the game. I'm not 100% sure yet how it'd work out, and the game itself is in it's early stages - but thought I'd broach the subject earlier rather than later.

​

Thanks in advance!

before joining the war, the Entente promised Italy to give them territories such as Istria, Dalmatia, and even a piece of the colonies in Africa, but at the end of the war, Italy struggled to even receive a part of what the allies promised to give, I know the 14 Wilson's points had something to do with this but what actually made the allies decide to betray Italy?

After taking a class on the Bible and it’s oral origins, I was surprised to find that the scripture didn’t outline a structure for the church. I asked my professor, and they had mentioned that there was not enough time in lecture to outline the political culture of the Roman Empire at the time, so they wouldn’t be able to answer the question besides saying it isn’t outlined in the Bible. So, I’m wondering what dictated the hierarchy within the church (pope, cardinals, bishops etc.) and why that came to be