complete quote:

Finland was punished after heroically resisting the Red Army, the fake partisans and the RAF and the Royal Navy and after eventually been forced to expel the Wermacht, defeating them all and without having ever done anything wrong.

It's not the first time I've read something like this. Was Finland really a victim of circumstances or is the truth, as usually, in the middle?

[deleted]

I was reading that bronze age civilizations like Assyria and Babylon had to trade long distances to secure tin, since it wasn't often found next to copper so as to make bronze. I noticed that Spain appears to have both - copper in the south and tin along the river that divides it from Portugal. And I remember learning that most early civilizations emerged around fertile river valleys, which seems to exist as well. So why did a bronze age empire not form in Spain?

I'm guessing that at least one of my postulates is plain wrong. But which?

A recent post mentioned that the program was once the third most advanced in the world, behind the Soviets and NASA. I'm curious as to how so small a country had a flourishing space program, and why this is something that nobody ever talks about.

Did the Greeks or Romans ever refer to themselves as “white”?

How much more time and how many more miles would it have taken? How difficult would it have been to stay reasonably close to food, shelter, mechanical and medical assistance? What other challenges did drivers encounter?

Multiple references are made to Persians worshipping at the religious sites of Greek gods and making sacrifices there. In particular, Cyrus, brother to the king of Persia, references the Persian Orantas’s repentance at an altar of Artemis before chastising him. Curiously, he cited Orantas’s later betrayal in spite of this repentance as further evidence in favor of his execution. Orantas is described by Xenophon as a Persian noble related to the King. Were the native Persians true Polytheists, or were their general religious practices more nuanced?

As opposed to a single colonial identity? Obviously asking about the former colonies of Spain since Brazil is one unified colony rather than several portuguese speaking ones. Why did they feel disctinct from each other if they spoke one language and followed the same religion? At which point did they start to think of themselves as Mexican, Colombian, Peruvian, etc. rather than subjects of spanish crown?

So I’ve been playing quite a bit of a ww2 game and it got me wondering about the ethnic diversity within Soviet armies, mainly, was there any and to what extent? From the little bit of research I did myself I only found a handful of answers and these were either contradictory or a complete guess by the poster.

I suppose what I’m asking is; given the size of the USSR and the number of different ethnicities within their borders, how did the Soviet Union manage to integrate so many different peoples into a single unified army? How were cultural and language barriers addressed? were there regiments composed entirely of Russians/Ukrainians and other Slavs while some composed entirely of Turkmens or of Armenians for example?

I would imagine that all the languages spoken in the USSR would make leadership inclined to have regiments composed of those that speak a similar language rather than putting say a Latvian in the same platoon as a Kyrgyz.

To add on to this: were armies composed of entirely or mostly the same ethnic group left in their home region? How common would it be for a platoon of Kazakhs to see service in the Baltic’s as an example

I’ve always thought it was weird that we read of these grand battles in ancient history where each army is said to be tens of thousands of men strong. For example the battle of Carthage in the third Punic war, its thought that Rome had brought about 80,000 fighting men and Carthage had about 30,000 defenders. I can’t even wrap my head around the size of this battle. But fast forward to something like the Battle of Bosworth in the war of roses and the army sizes are estimated to be between 7,500-12,000 men and 5,000-8,000 men. What so drastically changed that army size fell so much ? I know we have to take ancient battles with a grain of salt but there has to be some validity to these numbers.

It was always preferable for a princess married a king or a crown prince, but other dynasties did not seem to mind much as long as their members married within royalty. Was there any historical basis as to why the French royal family deemed their princesses to be worthy of only crown princes, kings and emperors, or was it just elitism?

Specifically, you ask how the USA got out of the Great Depression, everyone says they got involved in WW2. Wouldn't that just make things worse, as the US Government would have to divert more resources to the war?

I would guess it would be sort of like Americas 9/11 situation and the days following, but thats just a guess.

I know the Middle Ages is a very long period of time but I don't really know what point to focus on. I was just thinking about seeing flaming arrows used by archers in various media and was wondering how effective they would be against regular arrows.

Hey Historians!

Can anyone recommend a well-written non-fiction book on India’s period of Emergency in the 1970’s a non-historian like me can enjoy? If it helps, I absolutely adored the style of “White Mughals” by William Dalrymple.

Thank you!!

EDIT: I’m not asking for a homework assignment, btw. I just enjoying reading historical non-fiction. Anyone who’s read White Mughals, for instance, could tell you it isn’t the most effective source for an academic paper.