They wanted to set up a puppet Basque state as a buffer between France and Spain after the war, and even contected with basque nationalists who were exiled in France. But, why? France was already going to be their puppet (I know that are wasn't under Vichy French control though), and Franco was in good terms with them, and hated their plan for pretty obvious reasons.

I recently started doing some research on the topic and found out there was a lot more rights violations than I originally thought, with people being brutalized and openly segregated. How bad was it?

I had the opportunity to visit the USS Missouri yesterday and the guide was talking about the team used on the deck of the Mighty Mo’ as well as other US battleships and carriers. It was explained that the teak was sourced from China. It occurred to me that as China was struggling with its war against the Japanese, how was the supply of teak maintained or were alternate sources used to fill the supply gap?

[deleted]

In popular culture, "barbarians" are often depicted using axes while "civilized" soldiers equip themselves with swords. Examples are the Roman soldier versus the Barbarian, or the Viking as opposed to the Knight.

How accurate are these depictions? Did "less civilized" people use axes more often? Is this just a form of Othering? How old is this dichotomy?

So, my understanding is that European use of the terms ‘Emperor’ and ‘Empire’ come from the Roman Empire. That when subsequent rulers claimed the title of Emperor they where trying to tie their rule back to the Roman Empire as a way to confer upon themselves.

1. Where there any antecedents to the Roman usage of emperor? Or was the term novel when Cesar used it? (I know he didn’t claim king because of prior Roman experiences with kings)

2. Presumably when Europeans came into contact with countries with what we call an ‘Emperor’ is then an exonym, a name bestowed upon someone by an outsider

3. the crux of my wondering. What decided if a ruler would be called be called emperor or king? Size of the nation? Power? Divine status? Did countries outside of Europe have an understanding of a difference between a king and an emperor or is that simple orientism. That other cultural groups had entirely different societal constructs and we just labelled the highest ranking guy emperor for western convenience. I’m thinking in particular of China and Japan.

I've heard of the weregild in England prior to the Norman conquest, but how exactly did it work? When did it become the standard method of justice/solving disputes?

From what I understand, Slavs can be categorized into East, West and South Slavs. First mention of slavs was around 1st and 2nd centuries AD. Quite common term in the 6th century.

What I don't understand is what qualifies for a slav? Russians are considered slavs but Sweden is not. The most common theory is that Prince Rurik (Founder of Kievan Rus' aka Russia) was from Sweden.

At what point did Russia become slavs?

Italian, Spanish and French are today considered beautiful and romantic languages. All of these languages have its roots in ancient Latin. My question is, how did romans view their own language, compared to other ancient languages? And vice versa, what did other ancient people thought of Latin? Was this similar to how we view Italian, Spanish, French today?

When looking at a map of the Macedonian Empire, it seems like Alexander took the hard route, as his empire almost exclusively spread Eastward, leaving Greece in the far West of a growing empire. Why did he not choose to expand in areas closest to Greece, such as the rest of the Balkans, but rather, keep conquering towards India?

Most of the materials expect for rubber seem to already been available, while in the world without motor vehicles it seems they would be incredibly useful. Why did no such kind of a devise come into wide use?

I'd like to also know about origin of domestication, spread, high-consuming nations, law, etc.

Sorry for my English but I want to ask a question. We all know Zhukov, but there were also Ivan Konyev and Konstantin Rokossovsky and Vasily Chuikov. Those people fought Nazi war machine at its full strength and eventually defeated them. I mean just compare D-Day and Battle of Kursk or Operation Bagration. So my question is did westerners just ignore incredible achievements of Soviet generals in favour of their own? I mean even with Battle of Kursk which saw thousands of thanks and planes fight each other. Western Allies on the other hand just take advantage of deteriorating Nazi conditions and finally initiated D-Day landing. Sorry if this comes across as overlooking achievements of US-UK-France but to me bulk of the fighting seems to happen in Eastern Front and I feel like Soviet commanders have been overlooked.

Sorry for bad English. I hope you understand my question! If not mods please delete this.

Before Prussia united the German states into the German reich they were a bunch of independant duchies, kingdoms etc all with their own national feeling. When Germany was formed how did they make it one nation out of all these independent and culturally diverse regions? At the start of World War 2, as far as I know, the country was very unified (the Nazis probably had a lot to do with this) but before the Nazis became in power how did the Reich stay one coherent country and did not fall apart due to sepetarist movements for example in Bavaria where there is a small seperatist movement still today?