ELI5 Please.

I see it Westphalia tossed around as "the origin of the modern nation state" every now and then. I just don't really understand what that means. How is a nation state different than all of the nations and states that existed before the treaty and why did this treaty have an impact beyond the official signatories?

I'm watching WWII in Colour, and it mentions during the Battle of the Bulge that German soldiers dressed as American soldiers behind US lines were killed by firing squad. The SS captured 150 American artillery men and killed at least 88 of them and it was called a massacre and war crime.

Why is one considered a war crime and the other is not? Are spies not given protection by the Geneva Convention?

The Revolutions of 1848 led to:

• Overthrow of the French monarchy and introduction of universal male suffrage (which lasted from thereon, rather than being reversed as in 1789).
• Abolition of Serfdom in Austria, Hungary, and Prussia.
• Transformation of Denmark to a Constitutional Monarchy.
• Introduction of Nationalism and Liberalism (both social and economic) as mainstream political forces, which in subsequent decades led to entire countries being re-shaped along ethnic and national lines.
• Beginning of modern Socialism/Communism as a political force.

Sure, not everything the revolutionaries wanted they got, and in many places the changes were not achieved, or reversed in the immediate term. It would take the subsequent decades for the seeds of Nationalistic, Liberal, and Socialist forces planted during 1848 to grow by the late 19th century.

By comparison, the French Revolution of 1789 is considered to be of monumental importance, a defining point in modern civilization, while the 1848 revolutions are considered a fad, a failure. Why so? If anything, the immediate achievements of the French Revolution of 1789 (republicanism, universal male suffrage, Rights of Man and specifically rights of the poor Sans-Culottes) were soundly reversed by the mid-to-late 1790s (and not before a disastrous and bloody civil war and reign of Terror), without ever spreading out of the country, and arguably the longest-lasting achievement was the rise of Napoleon and his own achievements such as the Napoleonic Code. Whereas the liberal and nationalistic ideas espoused in the Revolutions of 1848 were achieved on a much closer timescale after they happened, if still not immediate, and transformed Europe as a whole.

So by their long-lasting legacy, one could argue the Revolutions of 1848 were of bigger impact on Western civilization than the French Revolution of 1789. Is there a reason, therefore, many consider the Revolutions of 1848 a failure?

During the Napoleonic Wars, Napoleon Bonaparte was referred to by the English as “The Monster” and “The Ogre.”

At best, he would install his family members as the new rulers of whatever nations he conquered, and at worst, he was exporting the ideals of the French Revolution to former monarchical states. Yet, at the end of the War of the Sixth Coalition, he was allowed to bring one thousand soldiers with him during his exile to Elba. Then, after the Hundred Days, they exiled him again.

If Napoleon was so dangerous, why didn’t the leaders of Europe simply kill him?

I couldn’t find a more appropriate subreddit and I’ve debated posting it for some half hour now, hope it fits the sub because I’m really curious about this.

I thought I read somewhere that Frederick the Great praised George Washington in some way, and said so in one of my midterm exam essays. I can't find any reliable sources that confirm what I claimed though, so I hoped that this subreddit might be able to help.

Greetings all, I am hoping someone can point me to a source or references.

I recently read a document (it's name has fled my mind at the moment...) that claims Muslim traders were much more distant travelers and effective merchants within the Indian Ocean Basin because there was "no taboo on travel." The Prophet himself was a merchant and traveler so Muslims naturally had no inhibitions on travel. This stood in stark contrast to the peoples of South Asia, the various Hindu schools of thought, who because of their rules on purity and belonging made outcasts of those who left their local community.

I am not an expert in religious studies and I only have a basic knowledge of Indian Ocean Trade history. However, the above statement seems to fly in the face of what I know. My interpretation of the topic is that there were several zones based on cultural and geographic distinctions (Arab/Muslim/Persian, Hindu/Indian, Chinese) that overlapped and interconnected.

So first, if the statement was true then how did South Asian cultural norms, religion and writing script spread to Southeast Asia (Thailand/Cambodia/Indonesia)? Was it not via trade and commercial contact? And second don't most interpretations of the Caste System reserve a place for merchants and traders? So would they not be able to travel without fear of ostracization?

If anyone could help me understand this, or recommend a source that clarifies this or explains the nuance?

Any help is much appreciated!

What caused the Great Depression from an economic sense? Was it only the Stock Market crash of 1929?

What was the step by step process?

According to wikipedia, only 1500 paramilitary troops were sent to fight Cuba's standing 25000 man army, not including paramilitary. It seems to me crazy that anyone could think that a ratio of over 10:1 could yield victory. Then, considering the fact that the US very soon after launched a full scale intervention in Vietnam, and the fact that Cuba was such a dangerous country to have communist close to the us, and the fact that cuba nationalised various US industries, why did the US not launch a full scale intervention, as they did in Vietnam? It would be consistent with their policy before and after the bay of pigs, and presumably have a higher chance of success than such an outnumbered force.

Did the South view it as a disingenuous strategy to maintain the loyalty of the slave border states, or were they worried about giving legitimacy to the Northern government by partaking in its legislature?

Why was it not done in 1942 or 1943?

I was reading the Treaty of Versailles the other day, and Article 246 states that "Within six months from the coming into force of the present Treaty, Germany will restore to His Majesty the King of the Hedjaz the original Koran of the Caliph Othman, which was removed from Medina by the Turkish authorities and is stated to have been presented to the ex-Emperor William II."

Who stated that this Koran was given to Wilhelm II, and why would Turkish authorities give it to him?

How is Germany expected to follow through with this when Wilhelm II fled the country 6 months prior to this treaty?

Edit: Made it clearer what I was asking

I think it's fascinating that some of the oldest texts in existence talk about trade and taxes. Were there any cultures that built sizable societies that did not have taxes as a method of supporting the government or ruling class?

Is there any chance I could get some education here without angering anyone? I want to know why this theory is Bull $hi!. and the facts I can use to argue against it when someone brings it up to me. (writing all this when I'm sure I will get a curt response with a posted link to a convo that already exists here)

This is the theory I heard, though I cannot find where I heard or read this originally, another reason why I came here.

The anthropologists Howard Vyse, having run out of money and time forged his findings last minute. The "evidence" for this was in his research and his personal journal. When read it was, supposedly, clear that he did not find what he claimed to discover with in the time that he spent in Egypt. In both journals he apparently showed much frustration that his research was fruitless.

But then right at the end of his time he announced his discovery, hieroglyphs about Khufu and his loyal workforce. The first evidence that it was indeed Khufu who built the pyramid as stated by an older historian.

They claim Vyse forged or modified the hieroglyphs

Now there are clearly some wild conclusions that people have jumped to on account of this theory, but I think the basic idea is that Khufu was actually restoring the Great Pyramid of Giza, and at the very least it pushed back the timeline for when humans started building the pyramid, before Khufu.

The claim also is that Egyptologist's embraced this timeline quite simply because it fits in with the 6000 year age of Earth as stated in the Qur'an.

Now clearly the hieroglyphs are still there and can be dated. This alone should prove this wrong right? It seems something like this would be impossible to forge, especially considering that he had to send off a copy to the only person at the time who could actually translate the glyphs.

It does kind of seem unlikely that any pyramid could be built within the one persons lifetime. Could it be that Khufu was simply the Pharaoh at the time of its completion, and that the glyphs celebrated him and the Gang/workforce that completed the marvel? Or that he took great efforts to restore it?

Clearly this theory is not excepted, and i'd like to understand why, for future arguments about the Pyramids. How else can we date them?

I would now like to preemptively apologize for all that I have done wrong by posting this. So far I feel like I'm not allowed to ask questions in the Ask historians subreddit. Though I believe I am on the same page with most people here when it comes to this particular question, I still wonder why the mere questioning of a popular historical theory is instantly met with anger. Is there no room for theory, and discussing hypotheticals?

Even when I posted a question wanting to know about Machiavelli,(no crazy theories included) it was removed because it somehow didn't fit into the guideline of "you must post about a real human in the past". Are they saying he wasn't real?

All I know is I love humanity and all the historical chapters there are to explore, back and through the ages. I simply want to learn more and more.

1) Why don’t historians consider the taking of Constantinople in 1204 as the end of the Byzantine empire? Didn’t the empire split into 3 rump states?

2) Why is Nicaea considered to be the true successor of the Byzantine Empire?

Thanks for your time.