I came up with this question while thinking about the parallels between Mesoamerica and South Sulawesi.

In the 1660s, the Dutch East India Company and their local Sulawesi allies (the latter supplying most of the troops) systematically dismantled the empire of Gowa-Talloq, the region's dominant power. Like Mesoamerica under the Aztec Triple Alliance, South Sulawesi was not under very centralized imperial control but divided into small polities who accepted the dominance of the imperial center, which itself was not a single entity but an alliance of the twin kingdoms of Gowa and Talloq.

Once Gowa-Talloq was reduced to rubble, the new hegemon in South Sulawesi was not the Company but Arung Palakka, the foremost general among the allies of the Dutch. Rather than direct European domination, Gowa-Talloq's empire was simply replaced by another indigenous force more amenable to Dutch interests, that of Arung Palakka.

On the other hand, once the Aztecs collapsed, it seems that the allies of the Spaniards very quickly accepted that these foreigners would replace the Mexica as the new masters of Mesoamerica. From my limited knowledge, Mesoamerican rulers seem to have tried to integrate themselves into the new Spanish imperial structure rather than create a novel indigenous empire with the help of the conquistadors, as Arung Palakka did.

And in the end, while Arung Palakka's kingdom remained independent from direct Dutch control until 1905 (240 years after the establishment of the Dutch as a major factor in South Sulawesi politics), Tlaxcala and the other allies of the conquistadors seem to have been well-integrated into the Spanish administrative structure within a hundred years of the Conquest.

Why was this?

I've always noticed that Britain seems to have a much less prominent Jewish community than mainland Europe. We (historically) don't seem to do "ghettos" or have a history of rampant anti-Semitism.. but there are small communities here and there despite a 12th Century expulsion... I always assumed these communities were formed out of WW2 refugees... But a Wikipedia article I just read suggests the population went from about 40,000 in 1880 to more than double by 1890 ... A good 50 years earlier than I would expect.

What was going on in the world at that time to encourage so many Jews to move to Britain in such a small space of time?

I was talking with my roommate and we realized we knew nothing about African Philosophers or African Philosophy in general. When I tried to look it up, Wikipedia wasn’t giving me much to work with- or perhaps I didn’t understand what they said.

So what the central themes or tenets of African Philosophy?

Religions like Christianity are still huge now a days but those believing Norse mythology dont seem to be around anymore whats the cause of one being more popular than the other?

Most books on Buddhism I pick up are the same--they all seem to be written by New Age Americans who talk about the present moment. That's fine and everything, but I'm more interested in the history of Buddhism and how it evolved--also, its relationship with politics and society. Basically something on par with a history of Christianity.

Thank you!

I'm in the process of writing a book and part of the plot is a famine caused by a massive loss of farms in a society roughly equivalent to Europe in the middle ages. They don't poses gunpowder or firearms and they're in the process of over hunting the game around a major city, which forces them to hunt smaller and smaller animals like songbirds, water fowl, and eventually pests like rats.

Before I go inventing something stupid, I'd like to check with you all to see if there are any historical examples from around this time period of effective larger scale hunting methods for small game. I'm aware of snares and traps, but they seem like they would be mostly a secondary method to feeding a large starving population*. The setting is a mountainous heavily forested area if it's relevant.

Sorry if this isn't an appropriate question for this subreddit. If you could direct me to another place that's more appropriate, I would appreciate it.

I've personally met a lot of Christians who propose that the world today is the way it is due to the secular mindset. I'm sure many of you know the argument of calling Hitler an atheist and assuming that's where secularism leads. That's beside the point.

I've been attempting to find primary sources of what the founding fathers thought of a religious foundation. The United States appears to be built off of Christian principles. Furthermore, this doesn't entirely make sense to me since Britain was ruled by the Anglican Church. From what I've learned the revolutionaries are the ones attempting to fight off the chains of Britain entirely, but does this not include religion?

The Treaty of Tripoli is an interesting one for me. According to numerous sources, John Adams wrote: "The government of the United States, is in no sense, founded on the Christian religion." I'm trying to find out if George Washington also signed this treaty. I've searched for the official document, but in the end, I've found nothing on it. Information from Washington has appeared to be vague on the religious grounds of the United States. From what I've learned it's indubitable that George Washington was a Christian. He attended an Anglican church during his life, as far as I've learned; even this has been debated.

Other founding fathers such as Jefferson and Franklin were easy to pinpoint how they felt about religion in government and as a whole. Moreover, I'm finding it easy(exuding Washington) to pinpoint individual opinions, but not the founder's concessions on the matter.

The United States is built upon religious freedom. Any person can practice any religion they please. With this fact avowed, why does Christian superiority appear to delve into society; spouting ideas of a country based upon moral superiority?

I'm attempting to learn here more than anything. If anything is wrong tell me. Help on any of the questions I have here would be splendid. Primary sources would be great too.

Thank you for reading!

I'm interested in the mechanics/theories (and "nuts and bolts") used to plan and manage large-scale enterprises in the past like Operation Overlord, the Apollo program, military operations, etc.

Today (at least in the tech world I'm familiar with) there are tons of terms/ystems like "agile", "Lean", "kanban", "waterfall". Many seem to originate in and evolve form the the Toyota Production System.

Obviously, history is filled with truly huge undertakings - successfully planned well before all these theories came about, not to mention before the IT resources we have today. I'd like to know what resources there are to study how these were actually planned, managed and executed.

I'm interested in all periods - really interested in finding sources!

So, I'm doing some heavy research into knights and have come across lots of information about lance formations and the importance of knights in armies before infantry became the bread and butter of bulk forces. I'm also aware the sieges outnumbered open field battles (insert number) to 1. I also know that cavalry was rather useless during sieges since defenders were protected behind walls.

So, if stone walls detered knights on horseback, what made heavy Cavalry the go-to force in warfare during their time?

If standing behind a wall was the best defense you had, then what did defending knights do during a siege of not ride into battle beyond the walls?

If I'm looking to take over France starting from the Spanish border, how do I decide what I need to siege and what I don't?

If I'm a duke trying to rally my 40 something knights and their lances for defense against Spain, how do I go about defending my duchy from the assault?

Considering the fact that Venezuela was the worlds leading oil exporter in 1939, I'm curious to why Japan didn't change up their trade so to avoid an all out gambit with the US.

I'm writting an essay about USSR history (specifically about perestroika), and I need to write about the USSR's economic system before the reforms.

I've already read The Soviet century (Moshe Lewin) and The age of extremes (Eric Hobsbawm) and both of them agreed that USSR wasn't exactly communist, but noone of them were clearly (for me) at giving characteristics about USSR's economic system.

My problem is that I know the characteristics (planificated economy, abolition of private property, autarchy, etc) but I don't find any author who supports this.

Does anyone know any source about USSR economy?

Thanks

Why did Ottomans managed to conquer Syria and Egypt in 100 years after taking over Constantinople but Byzantium couldn't in a 1000?

Or was it determined that the Spanish Civil War was too taxing on them?

How did the average home look like? How about the ones in Constantinople? And the palaces?

were there any social classes (equestrians, senators) during the Roman republican or imperial period that were tax exempt? Did this change over time?

As the titles says I am looking to major in history. I am 20 years old and have no idea what is required of history majors. I have always had a love for history, I didn't much care for other subjects in school but history was always interesting and fun. What kind of general education courses will I have to get out of the way before I can focus on my major?

My biggest concern is how many math courses I'll need as a requirement. I'm not very good at math, but I managed to pass my math course last semester. I'm struggling with my Algebra course this semester. Do I really need more than one Math course for a history major?

How else can I prepare myself for a major in history? Any and all advice is welcome. If this is the incorrect subreddit for questions such as this, please direct me to the proper subreddit if you can, thank you.

I've tried repeatedly to find information on how the crown of Aragon worked, and so far I've read two conflicting versions:

-The crown of Aragon worked as a sort of confederation, with the kingdoms of Valencia, Aragon, Naples and the principality of Catalonia existing as semi-autonomous nations under the entity of the Crown of Aragon

-Tge crown of Aragon was no different from any other feudal nation, with one ruling dinasty delegating titles underneath it

I was wondering if any historians here could help me clear off the doubt and perhaps expand a bit upon this

[deleted]

How were the various guilds of medieval times similar/different from industrial/post-industrial labor unions such as the AFL and IWW?

The Aztec culture has always fascinated me, yet I cant figure out how they hadn't developed weapons on par with the Columbian era. Is this because they were completely isolated from Western Europe/Asia?

I'm not asking how they fell. Disease did a number on them and it's impossible to combat against an army armed with horses and advanced metallic weaponry. Also to my understanding there was a lot of infighting within the Aztec world, and a rival tribe (the tlaxcallans?) even helped Cortes conquer Tenochitlan.