Hey y'all,

First off, I have skimmed through Reddit but can't find a post about this particular topic (if there is please let me know!). I am also unsure whether this is appropriate for this subreddit or for r/AskAnthropology (again, let me know!).

Anyways, I am curious about the development and characteristics of border cultures between two or more nations/kingdoms/cultures. I live in southern Texas, USA so the US/Mexico border is right there. Any books/articles/videos on the development and characteristics of that specific border culture would be great. But as stated at the beginning of this paragraph, I am also interested in border cultures of different places and time periods (for example, the Roman Empire and northern or eastern Europe or the US/Mexico border before the Mexican-American War).

If this request seems too broad (as I assume it is) then any help in direction would be much appreciated.

Oh, and if any of y'all would like to just simply lay out your own knowledge or any advice in researching such a topic, that is also welcomed.

since they were integral parts of the kingdom of spain

I understand the Frankish Empire being split into three parts and each ruler having direct control over their respective realms as kings. What I don't understand is how this kingdom became an empire, and yet direct control was lost as the HERE became... the HRE.

Besides, why was East Frankia a kingdom when Charlemagne was crowned Holy Roman Emperor in 800 CE?

This may be difficult to pin-down, but, nonetheless, I'm curious.

This is one claim within the field of 'economics', by and large, that I just don't get? Like... as far as I can tell- based on my occasional, independent 'research' on the topic- this.. is kind of a "myth" that, after a while, just 'took on a life of its own', so it operates almost as a sort of "business-world truism"? Especially since, from what I can tell, there are, in fact, *quite a few companies* here in the US that *don't*, oftentimes, make "value for shareholders" their number-1 priority, esp. firms like Costco (or Aldi and/or Trader Joes, to name a few) which, over the years, have, I think, been run on a more "stakeholder capitalism" type of model? And you almost-never hear about those firms getting prosecuted by the gov't, at least for *that* reason alone ("not prioritizing shareholders")

Like... *are* there any major, oft-enforced laws (esp. at the state level) and/or recent court rulings- again, in the US (if not similar nations)- that do, in fact, "require" the executives running publicly-traded corporations to, as their 'main/foremost duty' under the law to "generate value for shareholders"? *Can* a shareholder who, say, owns stock in Walmart, in theory, "sue" the firm if they "have hard evidence" that its executives and managers, "didn't try to maximize return for shareholders"?

I've gotten back into reading recently and am looking for some recommendations. I don't have much knowledge of the USSR besides the absolute basics. I'd prefer a book that paints a general picture of the Soviet Union, from what life was like for the common people to the general history of the various regimes that held power and important events in the country. I know I'm already asking a lot but most importantly I would like a book that doesn't read like a textbook, but has some character and soul to it. And also, preferably not textbook sized (ie not over 500 pages). I'm not entirely sure such a book exists, or perhaps multiple books covering different parts of the USSR would be better.

edit: also part of my reason for asking this question here is I'm looking for an unbiased source. It's sort of hard to cut through the noise and bias when so many people are extremely biased against or for the USSR.

I searched a little bit and wasn't really finding the answer I was looking for with the usual required effort. I would love to hear from a historian about the subject.

Cheers

Especially curious about this because some of the most notable cold war conflicts, such as the Vietnam and Korean Wars, happened in China’s backyard. And today, China has been left out of the conflict.

Another thing that’s interesting is that China, despite known for its tech development, did not focus on developing the same nuclear fire power as the US and USSR have. Why did China not follow suit in the Cold War era?

So from my understanding, Marbury v Madison ruled that Marbury had a right to his commission, but that the Supreme Court could only decide the case as an appeal. So why didn't Marbury just take his case to a lower court that would have jurisdiction and then appeal to the Supreme Court if necessary? Did he somehow lose the right to the case after having "lost" it once, did he just not bother, or am I misunderstanding something here?

I read once about certain elite warriors in an army, that were given twice as much pay as regulars (ostensibly because they were as useful as two men) These fellows would be the ones wielding zwiehanders and other huge weapons, tasked with defending river crossings or other crucial points.
Was this an actual thing, or have I just imagined up something from a fantasy novel? The ideas of zwiehanders, more pay, and guarding bridges/crossings are strongest in my mind.

I'm very interested in this topic, but I can't for the life of me remember where I read it. I'm also not able to find the right keywords to search it up so far.