I am currently reading a book about the UN’s work in the Balkans during the 1990s conflicts. It seems that Russia often sided with the Serbs, seeing them as brothers due to both their Slavic and Orthodox roots. Did any Muslim countries see the Bosnians in this same light? The book focuses on Western nations actions and doesn’t mention anything about Turkey/ the Middle East/North African countries.

In my mind I can see paintings of medieval courts, or TV dramas with characters walking through medieval towns, and, can pretty easily see or understand differences between, say, the 1400s and the 1700s, but, I really have no idea what 'changed' between the 400s and 1400s beyond the military.

What I'm asking is that if I hopped into my TARDIS and asked it to take me to a European Capital sometime between 400 and 1400, what clues could I use from my surroundings to tell where on the timeline I am.

Reading both here and elsewhere, i was generally taught that medieval people were extremely fragmented, and lacked the sense of ethnic/national. But, today while reading Machiavelli's ''The Prince'', i've seen too many sentences where he clearly mentions Italy as sort of a country which is unfortunately disunited. Sentences like (paraphrasing and translating since my copy isn't in English):

''Before the French King entered Italy, she was ruled by the Pope, the Venetians, Naples King, Milanese lord and Fiorentenes. They had two main goals: Protect Italy from the FOREIGNER, and prevent each other from gaining too much strength within her ''

''...Italy's current downfall can be explained by her reliance on mercenary armies...(few sentences beetween)...that's why the King of France conquered Italy so easily''

''Pope Julius wanted to conquer Bologna and banish the French from Italy''

So, any clarification on those views, and general existence of national/ethnic identity in those times? Seems to me Machiavelli treats Italy sort of how we would treat Syria today - a clearly existing country which is unfortunately disunited and ruled by different factions of warlords and presence of foreign armies. He doesn't treat it as something that really wasn't a country within his lifetime or in centuries upon centuries before him.

Not the people living in the city, but, for example, someone living in what is today France, or, Egypt. If someone had asked them what nation they lived in, what would they say?

I know 2 years ago a similar question was asked but that seemed more focused on the city.

Basically, what we would consider Ancient "China" was, by those living there, called the "Middle Kingdom" or "Zhongguo" and not "China". I'm wondering if there was a similar case for "Rome"

I have this project where I have to study the design of any South Asian artifact or weapon (preferably weapon) ranging from ancient times to the 20th century. For example, the Katana (although not South Asian) is something I could work on.

I have almost no clue where to look for it. Any book/link recommendations or any recommendation in general would help me a lot.

Today, you write a book, someone just whether it can make money or not, and, if so, they print a run of it and sell them to people. The writer gets a fee and some percentage of the royalties.

I doubt that worked like that in the days of Chaucer, Milton, Alighieri, et cetera. Shakespeare had a theater and probably charged admission and whatnot, but how did the rest of them make money? Were they all independently wealthy?

Also, what about scientists, historians, mathematicians, and such in the days before there were universities with grants, commercial labs, and everything that supports them now?

I'm particularly interested in Europe prior to consumer economies and, preferably, prior to widespread literacy.

If so, to what extent were they allowed to exert their influence? Were they able to do this with zero repercussions from their superiors? Side question, were swords actually tested on convicts?

Hello Historians!

I just finished reading Shōgun by James Clavell. I’m interested in the time period (1600-?) after Tokugawa Ieyasu took the shogunate. Particularly, I was wondering what happened to the Jesuits and Portuguese during that time period.

Were they allowed to stay in Japan? Was Catholicism accepted, however secretly? I know there came a point when one of Tokugawa’s sons or grandsons closed Japan to foreigners. What precipitated this event?

And were the borders forced open by the British in the Meiji era, or before? How long did Japan stay closed to foreigners, and was trade still allowed in Nagasaki, or did they close their country to trade as well?

I’m sorry if my questions are amateurish. I’d just really like to fill in some of the blanks I have.

Thanks!

My only experience with Ba'athism was knowing that it was Saddam's "ideology" and the Ba'ath party effectively served a role in the Iraqi state much like the Nazi party did within Germany, where membership in the party conferred access and was used for the leader as a buffer against potential internal threats in the government. I was surprised to learn that Assad's family is a Ba'ath party thing given how tense Iraq and Syria have been for ages. You'd think it would be more friendly, like how Hitler and Mussolini were friendly over shared ideological principles as well as mutual enemies. Despite that, my understanding is that Syria has generally remained out of much of the conflicts right up until the Arab Spring and was never particularly friendly or an ally to Saddam.

I've also seen some of the more wacky types of socialists ("tankies") defending Ba'ath regimes as "socialist" which is pretty strange to me given that in any incarnation that I've actually seen them, they far more closely resemble a sort of muted fascism or vague nationalism than any sort of Marxist ideology.

I've read that at one point it was nominally a socialist or communist ideology with a lot of "true believers," and I'm curious about how that was true, what changed, what the Ba'ath party even is if it has any ideology today and so on.

First off let me say that I understand why the US was the only one with a semi automatic rifle in mass issue, and why other governments at the time put a hold on R & D to go ahead and use what they already had, and what they knew would work just fine in the field. My thought for this question comes specifically from North Africa, and wondering if any British soldiers saw the M1 Garand for the first time and started to wonder why they were breaking contact with a five round bolt action rifle when the US had an eight round semi automatic rifle. Did they start to question why their government wasn't supplying them with their own version of the M1? Or why they hadn't just ordered them from the US like they did Thompsons? Or were bolt action rifles still so common at the time that they didn't even give it second thought? I'd be interested to know if any British, Canadian or French soldiers took issue with this. This may just be a passing thought but I'd be happy to hear what this awesome sub has to offer on this one.

I am starting in a game of Pendragon RPG, which takes place a generation after the Romans evacuate and leave the isles to their own defenses. Standard defensive manors are Motte and Bailey. But I have always been taught that M&Bs showed up after William the Conqueror showed up in 1066.

So, did M&Bs exist previous to Williams arrival, and he just popularized them? Or did some other sort of defensive fortification exist prior to the Saxons taking over?

In a recent post that discussed Texas during the Civil War, it was mentioned that some men whom the Union captured were paroled, allowed to go home on the condition that they didn't fight for some set time.

How did this work logistically? Was it part of prisoner swaps? Did the Confederacy practice it, too? Were units provided with lists of paroled prisoners to compare against the list of those captured or to prevent induction during call up?

Why was the Soviet Union not included on discussions of the Atlantic Charter? The US was not yet fighting the Axis, however the Soviets were recently attacked by Nazi Germany. Why did Roosevelt and Churchill not seek insight from the Soviet Union for how the world would be reshaped post war? Did the lack of Soviet participation in the meetings have any influence on the tensions between the West and USSR post war?

I was having a discussion with my coworkers were I made the statement that Pakistan and Bangladesh were never part of India. My argument was that there was never a country named India before Pakistan and Bangladesh(previously part of Pakistan) separated.

So was Bangladesh and Pakistan ever part of India?