I have been reading a lot of history magazines that feel badly researched. What are some good magazines you would recommend on modern history?

Marx and Engels write: "A spectre is haunting Europe — the spectre of communism. All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Pope and Tsar, Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals and German police-spies.

Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as communistic by its opponents in power? Where is the opposition that has not hurled back the branding reproach of communism, against the more advanced opposition parties, as well as against its reactionary adversaries?

Two things result from this fact:

I. Communism is already acknowledged by all European powers to be itself a power.

II. It is high time that Communists should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the Spectre of Communism with a manifesto of the party itself.

To this end, Communists of various nationalities have assembled in London and sketched the following manifesto, to be published in the English, French, German, Italian, Flemish and Danish languages." Was communism already a political force before the publication of the Communist manifesto, or are they referring to the general idea of labor movements?

assuming it has at a rate higher than violence in general since the 1500s. I was thinking about the sunni/shia fighting going on and thought "why didn't christianity have that?" when I remembered that's much if not most of what christians did for a long time there. I'm curious how it was possible for protestant/catholic wars to largely end.

IOW, why did it happen when it happened and not sooner/later? Were the drivers mainly sociopolitical or was there a sense of British sovereignty over the 13 colonies as unfeasible in the long term? Did the pro-revolution forces think/predict that the American colonial system would probably face collapse anyway by the start of the 19th century or something similar?

The Japanese Empire was created a few years before the 2nd Reich was created, and fell a few months after the 3rd Reich fell. This empire had lived through the failure of both the Schlieffen Plan and Operation Barbarossa. In secondary school I was taught the Japanese simply didn't have the wartime economy to keep up with the U.S., and after majoring in General Asian History, that's still what I had learned. But I had just thought, surely this empire must have had a backup plan if they couldn't destroy the aircraft carriers at Pearl Harbor. I can't see an empire with a strict military honor code which has read the Art of War many times to go into war against the U.S. without a plan to win and make the U.S. sue for peace. Would they really risk everything on Pearl Harbor being a victory or did they have a backup plan in place?

Obviously with major exceptions (like the original settlement of North and South America 20,000 years ago, or the colonization of Hawaii) why did Asia have so much less contact with the Americas than Europe did in more recent history? The Norse colonization started in the late 10th century and European colonization started in earnest in 15th century. The distance from Spain to Trinidad is 4,000mi and the distance from England to Virginia is 3700mi. The distance from Japan to California is 5,300mi which is larger though at its smallest point the continent is separated from Alaska by only 55mi. Is it that most of that [Siberia/Russian] area is lightly inhabited and colonization required major civilizational might? But is 1,300mi enough of a difference to account for the lack of Japanese contact?

additionally: Are there any other notable examples from history which break this rule?

I think most people with a passing knowledge of the soviets in WW2 are aware of the russian commisars who stood behind the lines of the advancing troops and opened fired on retreating troops. how prevalent was this across the entire soviet army? Was it at all engagments?

When did this start as well? Was this introduced from the beginning? or after some major losses in the early days?

As an add on, what exactly was a commisar? I've heard them refered to as political officers, so am I right in guessing they were trying to uphold soviet or stalinist values in troops?

Aristotle is said to have tutored Alexander until the age of sixteen, so I'm curious about the types of things he might have had in his curriculum. I'd imagine it wasn't just philosophy, but I'm not an expert. Thanks in advance!

I didn't receive any answers the last time I submitted this question.

He references a potential reason for the collapse of Greece being refugees from European nations, another collapse in Afghanistan reduced the ability to produce bronze. So what can you tell me about the wider world during the collapse and its lead-up

Any insight onto the nature of how Gallic and Greek warfare collided would be amazing.

Most stuff that i read only mentions that he either preserved the city and stopped any efforts of destroying it or he ordered a ransack for 3 days, but not the fate of the civillians (except for that one book by Roger Crawley, where he mentions that all civillians got enslaved)

I am not a history nerd by any history nerds estimation, but I do enjoy learning about certain areas of history and plan on getting into history more. Up until this point one of my major historical blindspots has been Rome. What are some good documentaries, podcast episodes, and books that can help me learn about the subject. Ideally I'd like them to be comprehensive but not overly long.