At what point do people speak of a genocide? For example: in July of 1995 the Srebrenica genocide of Muslim men took place in Bosnia, but a few years before (1992) 700 Muslim men where tortured and killed in a village just 10km from Srebrenica but people don’t use the word genocide to describe this event. Why is that?

I'm looking for academic works on—or containing something on this topic—the role of trees & forests in human societies. For instance: forests as a resource (for example sawmills), trees have been used as landmarks, places of political gatherings, hanging trees, etc.

Resubmitted due to poor wording of question.

So to my understanding, when the Umayyad conquest of Hispania happened, it was a Visigothic kingdom but then when the Spanish eventually took over, culminating with the Granada war nearly 700 years later they seem to treat it like they were the rightful rulers of Iberia the whole time, and I'm wondering where did the Spanish who "took back" the Iberian peninsula come from and how did they come to believe that the whole thing was rightfully theirs in the first place?

Recently, while conversing with a friend, I commented that I was thinking of buying a good history book (XIX century). He jokingly told me to save money because I was going to have to buy 3 books. I asked him why. He responded that, in order to see all points of view we have to buy a socialist historian, a liberal historian and the neutral one. We laughed and the conversation shifted but it got me thinking. Do you agree with this idea? And if so, can you give examples of such authors? I apologize if this isn’t the most adequate sub. Thank you in advance.

We like to pepper modern English, in particular our scientific and technical terms, with Latin/Ancient Greek words and phrases, and it recently occurred to me to wonder whether any of them would make sense to an Ancient Roman or Greek native speaker. Would species names like Homo sapiens or Felis catus make sense? If I called something ad hoc, sui generis, ad hominem or ex nihilo, would a native speaker understand them to have the same meaning I would? If I told an ancient Greek physician I had hepatitis or schizophrenia, would he have the slightest chance of working out what I was talking about? Would any of it sound like normal speech or would it be like going to a doctor today and complaining of gutsouching, or accusing someone I'm having an argument with of managainstness?

(This question inspired by own recent bout of pericoronitis, which apparently is a combination of Greek and Latin elements and thus would probably sound extremely silly at best.)

Was it a cultural thing? Was there something unique about their immigrant experiences? Am i wrong about the existence of other European mobs because of a lack of coverage in media?

Is Mongolia's winter a comparable environment to Russia? Do cavalry work better in snow than I'm thinking? Was there a more complex strategy to it all?

I have been in a debate on the subject of Hitler being a vegetarian and so far it isn't clear to me if he was or was not. Many websites suggest that he was, but also many say that he wasn't. They claim that he did in fact eat meat such as sausages, others deny those claims.

Whom should I trust? Which sources can be trusted (on this subject)?

I know that this question has already been asked, but I don't know why it is claimed that he wasn't a vegetarian.

If the flag was used, was this flag only used by the Australian Imperial Force or was it used as a national flag before being changed to the more familiar blue?

Visited Les Invalides recently and it's nuts how fond people's nostalgia for Napoleon is.

Why did the French love Napoleon, even when he began to embody what he revolution sought to destroy?

I'm studying the french revolution and this seems to be a pretty major issue. Where does the blame lie for the failure of France's constitutional monarchy. A lot of historians discuss this but in a reasonably indirect way which brings me to my second question:

Are there any historians who deal with this question directly? I'd love to read a historian making an argument one way or the other rather than just going through the narrative of the revolution and subtly lacing it with their own opinions.

I'm having trouble untangling the factors and deciding what my own opinion is on this topic

thank you

Were the charges levelled accurate, and did the trial in general lead to anything more significant in the Catholic church?

Numerous nuclear weapons tests were conducted on the Australian continent, including Operation Hurricane, the test of the United Kingdom's first atomic bomb on the Monte Balle Island archipelago, in 1952 followed by two more tests in the same location as part of Operation Mosaic in 1956.

So why didn't Australia ever take inspiration from it's allies and begin acquiring nuclear weapons of it's own to protect itself?

And, if they had, what would the war have looked like?