Hello, is there any recommendations for a documentary about American History? And where I can find it.

Looking at a map of South Africa, these two small enclaves stick out. How come they exist separate from South Africa (or, in Swaziland's case, possibly Mozambique)?

Poland passed a law making it a crime to say poles were complicit in Nazi war crimes. So my question is were they? To what extent? If so, was it voluntary or forced?

I just can't stop reflecting on the origins of the Great War. Why the War of 1870 didn't unwind the chain reaction of a global war. Why it was so short ?

A restored Wilhelm? The Kaiser's son? I know the former Kaiser himself saw his grandson (confusingly enough, also named Wilhelm) as the next Kaiser.

I heard that Justinian's code influenced Napolean, but did it also influence english common law?

I think I might have read this on some listicle site like Cracked but I can't find the listicle that I actually read it in.

Hi all,

I'm not sure if this is the best place to ask this type of question, but this is something that I've been thinking for a while. Starting with ancient Rome and all the way up to early Medieval period, there have been a lot of examples of large fortifications being constructed - from walled cities, to purposely-built forts to extend control over territory.

How effective were these forts/etc considering the massive amounts of manpower and cost associated with their construction verses dynamic forces?

My main thought process is that dynamic forces/raids could ravage the country side while walled cities and forts would have little effect on that. That being said walled cities and forts would be a huge benefit against a large invading army.

I would imagine that it is difficult to say whether one is better than the other and the real answer is that a combination of both is probably the best of both worlds. Defence from sudden attacks and the time it takes to raise an army vs holding a standing army at all times come to mind...

I am curious if there is evidence that any ancient peoples tended to be fearful of bugs and other pests in the way many modern Western people are. For example, would a "typical" republican Roman woman have leapt upon a chair after sighting a rat? Would a 6th century Frankish man have spotted a spider on the ceiling of his home and fled the room?

Were bugs used to torture people? (I've read that rats were).

I understand that many modern cultures readily consume all manner of insects, arachnids, rodents etc. This leads me to suspect that most such phobias (besides rational ones like rats spreading disease or devouring the grain stores) are a phenomenon of post-industrial urban living. Am I way off about that?

Thanks!

Seeing how mainly the wealthy and the church could read and write, wouldn’t it be more formal than your average serf? Or maybe, like in the case of Shakespeare, purposely made rhythmic and poetic?

Edit: a word

Would there be no sense of shame about preserving another persons privacy, and were private diaries that were meant to be unread by others common? How do you lead any sort of private existence without the expectation of privacy?

While it seems that (on paper at least) democracy is about people choosing those who will govern them, and socialism/communism is about people working together for the greater good, what was fascism actually about? What was Hitler, Mussolini and Franco actually saying about how government should work?

[deleted]

So I was thinking about this the other day, compared to Eurasia, Sub-Saharan Africa was pretty underdeveloped in the past. I wondered if the Sahara Desert was responsible for this as it would prevent trade, and as a result new ideas and technology, from crossing easily into that part of the continent. Is this a valid theory?