Between Amin, Bokassa, Mobutu, Nguema, and Qaddafi, Africa seems to be home to some of the weirdest dictators of the 20th century. What about decolonization and culture brought such weirdos into power?

This was posted 4 years ago with somewhat unsatisfactory results. If anyone has knowledge from their period of expertise, perhaps that might contribute to a timeline of sorts.

Funny enough I got this question because of game of thrones, but I've been thinking about it and the only answer I can come to is ships being boarded. Is this correct?

I know that communism tends to spring up in agricultural regions of the world rather than industrial. Since the northern section of Korea is well suited for industry with its mineral wealth, the breadbasket that is the south having no ties to communism must be a historical irony. Is there anyone that can shed some light on this?

[deleted]

On the subject of the massive and staggering impact of disease in the Americas and Caribbean from the late 1400s onward, we have written Spanish accounts of disease and epidemics, but do you know of any accounts of these epidemics in indigenous records and oral histories instead?

EDIT : I'm not really English speaking (but I can easily understand it) but a mod helped me to reformulate. I knew this sub was a great sub, but wow, you guys are not just useful, you're nice and friendly. I love you, if one of you could marry me I'll be glad. (and I'll do the cooking and the dishes).

To develop. I heard a lot from my culture (from Maghreb/France) that Akhenaten's cult was the first monotheism. I've never really been really sure about that. Did he really impose his "God" and forbid to worship other ones, denying their existence ? Did the Jews believe in an only one "God" at that time (from what I know, the old testament comes from Mesopotamian's mythology/history) or did they have "their God" ?

I know that the Church was one of the biggest preservers of ancient texts through their copying initiatives at monasteries but I'm curious just how these ancient sources were seemingly forgotten and then rediscovered all of a sudden during the Renaissance. Did a monastery/church just decide that a certain document wasn't worth copying anymore and threw it in a corner in the library where it was forgotten? Do we have any actual original copies that were not reproduced by the Church that were stashed in their libraries or are they all later copies? And how were these documents just kind of forgotten? Did people stop caring what the ancient writers said for a while and so didn't see a need to keep them in the front window so to say?

This is a well-accepted line of history, but i was just randomly thinking, "well, I doubt they'd want to admit the Germans just saw it coming..."

Obviously the casualties of Operation Overlord were immense, so the resistance was fierce. Is it true that the Germans didn't expect Normandy, at least compared to alternatives?

I've heard that this is disputed, is that correct? What's the consensus among historians?

For example, I've read that the tower of Babel may have been inspired by the Mesopotamian ziggurats and that Noah's flood may have been inspired by a real great flood. Are there any sources that do this for the whole Bible (or a significant portion)?

Is this better understood as a miltary process, an adversarial one, a political one, or something else?

What state's interests did William ultimately serve? England's? Holland's? Both? Other?

Hi all,

I'm not really sure if this is the place to ask this, but I'm currently a History major in university struggling with developing a topic for my senior thesis. The topic I have came up with is essentially tracing the evolution of voter suppression among minority groups in the American South. My professor has told me that this is too broad and I need to narrow it down quite a bit. He suggested I bring it to a more local level, however I am having a hard time finding local level sources. My question is this, rather than focus more at a local level would it perhaps be better to simply focus on a limited period in time? For example, Disenfranchisement among minority groups in American South 1890-1950.

Please give me some topics about Anglo-Saxon England that Historians debate. The topic needs to have written primary sources, and enough material for me to able to write an essay on it.

(More Details: I need a question about Anglo-Saxon England that I can write an essay of several thousand words on. -It needs to be an issue that some modern historians disagree with each other on. -It needs to have written primary sources from the period. -As long as it is gives enough material for a long essay, it doesn't matter how petty the subject is. -The question has to (roughly) be cover a 100 year period.)

Please suggest ideas for the essay. Maybe books too. Any help is hugely appreciated.

Thank you very much.

The sight of Conor McGregor getting tired after 30 minutes of boxing made me think about how long ancient battles must of raged on and what it must have felt like to be one of those warriors and the endurance ones body must have built up to fight for such extended periods of time. But how much time?

I know the state of modern nutrition and technology allows for soldiers today to be overall healthier and stronger, but how would they fare in an ancient hand-to-hand, swords and sharp sticks, setting?

I know fairly little about both, but from what I understand, they both divided up populations into different groups -- the Varna with Priest, Warrior, "Agriculturalists and Merchants", "Laborer and service provider" and the estates with the Church, Nobility, and Peasantry. They both seem to be occupation linked and status linked with limited degrees of flexibility.

Obviously that is very broadstrokes for both and there are some obvious differences (e.g. the impression I have is that the King in say France was separate from the Estates and that the Church was a unified entity, while not all Brahmins were part of a particular unified entity), but they seem, on the surface, very similar to me. Is the difference in the Jati which do not have an analogy in Europe (outside of say ethnic minorities or perhaps groups granted monopolistic privilege over a trade or occupation like some guilds?)?

So why am I wrong? What are the key differences between these social arrangements?

EDIT: I'm fairly sure I am wrong, to be clear, which is why I want to know more.

Here is the text in question, I couldn't fit it in the title.

"Their dogs are enormous, with flat ears and long, dangling tongues. The color of their eyes is a burning yellow; their eyes flash fire and shoot off sparks. Their bellies are hollow, their flanks long and narrow. They are tireless and very powerful. They bound here and there, panting, with their tongues hanging out. And they are spotted like an ocelot."

Like the title says, when Christian or secular western powers took over what's now Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, India in the early years and then most of North Africa/Middle East after WWI, why wasn't there a pan-Islamic anti-colonial or anti-western movement? Most of the anti-colonialist movements I hear about are local nationalist ones. Was there not much of an "Islamic identity"?

I'm in an anthropology class that studies Native American cultures prior to, and after, the arrival of Columbus. My Professor stated that Columbus killed around 6 million Native Americans, only a small portion of which stemmed from the smallpox disease. This was supposedly in a 2-3 year period, so they would have to kill tens of thousands every single day. When someone called him out on the implausibility of this claim, he kind of moved away from the subject. I'm not a fan of Columbus, but that number seems ridiculously high to me.

Since the USSR essentially controlled Poland after splitting it with Germany.