Recently, I watched a Vice special report called "World in Disarray" and in it, they discussed how the post cold war world, and especially the post 9/11 world has featured a breakdown of the traditional international power structures. In a section on the current Ukrainian crisis, Richard Haass said that the recent Russian annexation of Crimea is unprecedented in the post WWII international system. What caused this shift from a very old system where a country could gobble up smaller nations at its borders as a viable foreign policy, to today where that same action strikes us as shocking?

I'm looking for a book or two on the history of Norway. It'd be cool if they went waaaaaaaay back to some of the earliest human activity there. I hope this is an ok question for this sub... Thanks!

I just learned that approximately 2 million Jews were forced to emigrate out of Russia to America in the 19th century. Of course we all know how Jews were treated by Nazi Germany. Are there other instances throughout history where Jews endured this kind of treatment? Is it just my relative ignorance of history that it seems Jews are repeatedly targeted and forced to leave where they are living? Are they targeted more often than other races/ethnicities?

During the lead up to and actual secession, what did all the members of congress from the states which had seceded do? Did they head off to the Confederate congress? Did they continue representing their states and acknowledge some as rebels?

[deleted]

With trade, poverty, slavery, and crime being a part of life in the Middle Ages it seems like there might be organized crime at least on the small scale. Did hedgelords or merchants ever organize "hits" or robberies within their areas of influence? Were highway robberies and raids sometimes part of a larger network of crime?

Is this a reasonably equivalent term or is it kind of like how terms like tyrant, dictator and barbarian are used to describe things in the ancient world that have different meanings?

Were these "gangs" similar to modern ones in terms of how they operated/who they recruited? Was there an ancient "gang culture"?

The only information I've been able to find is that the US sent some crated Hawk 75 fighters to Persia, which were captured by the British and used as Mohawk IVs.

[deleted]

On a train or Greyhound now, almost every traveller spends the trip using their phone or an e-reader. Before any electronic entertainment was available, what would a lone traveller do to kill time on such a trip? Was it commonplace to bring a stack of novels onboard? Was it more socially acceptable to talk to other passengers?

I read that the EP was already written up and viewed by Lincoln's cabinet by the time of this letter. And I'm also aware that this letter is largely taken out of context by others attempting to prove their widely debunked point.

As simply as you can put it..

1. What does this letter mean.

2. Forgive me if this is insensitive or even ignorant, but is it fair to say that the war was not as black and white as I'd imagined? That the causes of the war, like any war, were more complex and to say it was SOLELY about slavery, rather than a collection of grievances(including slavery) is just a gross simplification of something way more deep? Almost how the assassination of the Arch Duke was merely the match to the gasoline already spilled.

I appreciate any responses.

[deleted]

The way I understand the situation in 1066, Harold Godwinsson was crowned king in 1066 by the highest legal authority of the time, in that he was elected by the Witan and anointed under God. Compared to Harald Haardrada and William's counter claims that they had been promised the throne by a previous king.

Clearly, the lords of England did not feel that William's "rightful" claim was sufficient, and his subsequent conquest of England rendered that a moot point by replacing the lords with Norman adventurers of his choosing.

Was there a social, or legal framework in place that meant that William needed a right beyond the right of conquest?

So, bear with me because I'm sure there's going to be some major historical misunderstandings on my part as to the reason why I don't understand this. So, I'm aware real combat isent this "rock, paper scissors" but from what I understand, shield walls are fairly effective against projectiles but can be broken by calvary, while spear walls/squares are the opposite. What was stopping soldiers in the medieval/antiquity from using both spear and shield to deal with both possible outcomes? Large shield and spear. Would it just be too impossible to form tight enough to create an effectuent Shield walls if they also have the spear? Could a cut out in the side of the shield solve this problem like you sometimes see in circular shields?

As I understand it, the crown always goes to the male, even if they aren't descended from the King. So how did Elizabeth II end up being the monarch with the power?

Just started "The Landmark Thucydides" and was wondering if any of you knew of any good videos to watch that augment the reading. Thank you