If you were a supporter or member of the khmer rouge did you become a persona non-grata?Were you completely barred from holding functions of importance or was there an absorption of some degree?

Did the new leadership have a clear picture of what damage had been done and try to fix it ?(e.g. that they had lost a great deal of intellectuals thus focusing on attracting from abroad while a new generation would be raised)

Did the survivors mostly emigrate or did they stay ?

Was there a greater animosity between the middle class and the working class?

Were there attempts to exact revenge from the victimized groups?If yes, how often were these attempts?

What was the restitution process like ? And what happened to the property of those that died during the 4 years ?

As far as I know, in the 16th century, the Ottoman Empire was still largely in its prime. So, with reports of huge amounts of wealth, especially gold and silver in the new world, why would the Ottomans not attempt to establish their own colonies?

I've looked though the recommended books in the sidebar, but didn't see anything that fits the bill. If anyone here has studied the topic, this aspiring history buff would greatly appreciate some guidance!

How accepted is "The Decline of the West" in modern terms? As someone who enjoys history but is in no ways a professional would knowledge from this book help me in my understanding of history?

Apologies for the broadness of this question, I do not mean to imply that the artistic traditions of two massive cultures over centuries are equivalent or interchangeable! I just know so little about this topic I’d be grateful for answers on either subject.

In European art, particularly in the early modern era, the pastoral is a genre in painting, poetry, drama, music, and more. It depicts an idealized look at agricultural, rural life, often through stock characters and scenes (your shepherds and shepherdesses discoursing or falling in and out of love, your satyrs and so on). It’s often nostalgic, casting a longing eye on what the (often urban) artist or audience perceives as a more wholesome, simple life. It’s all over the place in European art.

Does such a tradition exist in China or India, societies with their own classes of urban artists and professionals, societies that, like Europe, were largely agricultural until quite recently? How did they perceive and depict the pastoral life in the premodern era? Were artists there similarly nostalgic, crafting idealized depictions of a simpler life?

Not every slave died early, some were unfortunate enough to live long lives as slaves, but what happened to slaves who were in their 70s or even slaves in their 80s, did they have to work and just muster through it or did their owners give them some compassion and just made them house slaves, or did they just beat them until they did the job?

Hi Guys,

My understanding of Mercantilism and why it was employed (please correct me if I'm wrong) was as a way for countries to prepare for War. War is extremely expensive, so Governments have to hold reserves of Silver and Gold in case of it. With Mercantilism, Governments wanted to maximize the amount of Gold and Silver they held while minimizing their rival's Gold and Silver as a deterrent against War (You don't want to find someone stronger than you i.e. someone with more Gold/Silver). How accurate is it?

Now, in order to enact this, it seems like Governments limited imports while encouraging exports. I'm confused as to why this is. With exports, doesn't the gold/silver/whatever payment go to the Merchant who sold the item, and not the Government? The Government gains gold/silver from the transaction by taxing it? So, with imports, couldn't the Government tax those as well? I understand the viewpoint of in times of war, imports may not be available (due to naval blockades and things), but what other reasons are there for not wanting imports? Thanks.

I have heard it is from Xenophon's account of Socrates, but I can't seem to track down the source.

Thanks!

Vote for your favorite(s), submit the ones you don't see. Y'all know the drill.

Hi reddit,

I've heard conflicting ideas of what was the most significant in winning the war for the coalition, some say it was Hougoumont and others say La Haye Sainte. Im curious of which is more significant in your eyes.

(if there was another factor please share)

Basically, before Iqbal's 1930 Allahabad speech, were there any other ideas for an Indian Muslim nation-state, separate from a Hindu one? If there weren't, was an independent India always conceived to be united? Also, as a follow-up, how did the idea of Pakistan so quickly develop from just a proposal by an intellectual to an actual, real thing with heavy popular support within only two decades? Are there any other examples out there for a group wanting to form a nation-state and actually forming it that quickly anywhere else in history?

Would it be a common thing for a man who had recently hired a female servant to have her virginity tested medically in the Victorian era?

I'm a 16 year old and ever since I can remember I was fascinated with the Civil War. Now that summer is rolling around I'm ready to pack my shelves full of books about the Civil War. Problem is I don't know what to look for. I kinda want a general overview of the war years and a lot of information about the military side of the conflict (I'm a sucker for military history). You guys have any recommendations for a kid looking to dive deep into the Civil War?

For that matter, did everyone and everything smell of smoke all the time?

So I know about how on the Aryan Hierarchy Jewish people, Slavs and Africans were all considered as basically sub human and hated, but what was the Nazi protocol towards Muslims and the Middle East? Were they seen as just as bad as Jews and necessary for extermination or as just lesser people like how Hitler described Southern Europeans?