I was in Croatia a few years ago and went to an art gallery in Splitz where they had some paintings from the early 20th century that looked very similar to the art in France that was inspiring all the American and NZ artists at the time. Which made me wonder, how integrated were the Balkans with Western Europe at the time? I've not heard much. Did wealthy Balkan landowners or early industrialists send their sons to study in Paris or Cambridge or Hamburg? Was there much inter-marriage?

[deleted]

The erudite, pious, inquisitive first modern Queen of Sweden came to the throne at a young age due to her father(Gustav II Adolf)'s death in 1632 at Lützen. Sweden was actually under a regency (her mother and then her uncle I believe) and the girl finally came of age in 1644 at the age of eighteen. So I guess I should get to the point already, what kind of relationship did Christina have with her father? Gustav II Adolf was renowned as a damn good reformer, administrator, and tactician, Christina must have either envied her father's successes, idolized him, been distant from him, or was indifferent towards (or possible despised his warlike nature and following of the Lutheran sect of Christianity)? She also had half siblings, I believe one of them was a male, so wouldn't this make for a possible pretender? Not only this but wouldn't Christina be upset that Gustav fathered these other children (unless I don't understand the situation) and possibly despised them as well? I'm obviously not to knowledgeable on this subject but I would like to know more from an expert or anyone who has more insight that I, thank you.

I'm Canadian, so it's an event that gets tons of coverage for its political implications as a nation-making moment for Canada. But how important was the battle, really? Did Vimy Ridge have much strategic significance?

Did the Sandinistas seize power taking advantage of a popular non communist revolution? Or were they a group with widespread support among the country like a more Maoist movement?

Thank you, this sub is the best!

I am writing a paper on the Taiping Rebellion and I have scoured the web for primary sources but have found nothing. Does anybody know any databases of websites were I can find these. Thanks!

Didn't Argentina break the Antarctic Treaty by starting the Falklands War with Great Britain? What are the semantics describing how this was ruled in terms of the treaty? How was Argentina affected by the treaty from this war?

I'm trying to write an essay and want to say " [patience] allowed Tokugawa to achieve difficult, long-range goals" but I do not have sufficient knowledge of him displaying patience to achieve a goal. I do have one point but I require some clarification. My primary resource is "The Maker of Modern Japan The Life of Shogun Tokugawa Ieyasu" by A.L. Sadler and I've read many small parts of it and Tokugawa's patience is described to be one of his most important attributes. "...patience was the quality he set most store by." (Sadler 17) and, "'...if my descendants wish to be as I am [as Tokugawa was]... they must study Patience.'" (Sadler 347) both indicate the importance of his patience. I have used google play book's search feature to search the book for any variations of patience, and have only found 2 instances of him displaying patience.

One of the two instances of patience that I could find relating to Tokugawa that is related is, of him being in an inferior to "Hideyoshi who had been merely a vassal who had risen from the ranks. ... It was ...[a position] he could hardly find pleasant, and it needed all his shrewdness and patience to hold his own dignity and domain with one of Hideyoshi’s genius" (Sadler 105). From what I understand this is talking about Ieyasu being a lower military rank than Toyotomi Hideyoshi in 1583 but the wording regarding the promotions and actual military rankings of the two is a little bit unclear. This display of patience is the closest I could find to help me with my essay, Tokugawa using patience to achieve a long-range goal, however, I'm not really sure how this helped him achieve a long-range goal because Sadler's text says: he probably wasn't happy that Hideyoshi was a higher rank than him, and from what I understand, that Tokugawa was patient in not causing a commotion and trying to become shogun at that time but instead waiting until Hideyoshi’s death.

Did Tokugawa gain Hideyoshi’s favour / avoid conflict because he was waiting for the correct time to gather allies and take so many provinces like he ended up doing? Did he plan to wait for his death? Also did Tokugawa’s being on the council of 5 elders help him in any way? How much of what lead The Sekigahara Campaign was Tokugawa Ieyasu being patient and how much was just him taking opportunities? Thank you in advance, and sorry for any confusing wording, I was very confused myself about EVERYTHING I mention in this question before doing an hour and a half's worth of research.

Was there a strong local desire for such a state? Or was it more to do with geopolitics?

What was life like for blacks in the Soviet Union?

Were they just locals who converted by the Ottomans? Or did they move into the area from other parts of the Ottoman Empire?

Also, and this is a slightly different question, were Bosniaks (and Albanians?) a different ethnic group to others in the area before converting to Islam, or was their ethnicity defined by being Muslim (ie being a Muslim in that area made you a Bosniak)?

[deleted]

I am wondering if the lingering affects of slavery and the civil war would still be with us if America was well over 1000 years old. Old enough for many generations to be born and to die off. Old enough that if this hypothetical +1000 year old America still followed the same timeline in it's first several hundred years of existence of slavery, civil war, Jim Crow, and civil rights movement to destroy Jim Crow, and now it's been over half a millennium past all of that stuff instead of only 50-ish, that now even mentioning racism outside of a history/classroom context is extremely taboo.

If the US were to be around and together for another several centuries, would the race situation and tensions have all but dissipated?

I'm writing a literary argument that Nathaniel Hawthorne "Young Goodman Brown" was based off the Salem Witch Trials

What was the mood like in Salem Village in the years following the trials? I'm trying to establish a before, during, after elements to the story and I just want some clarification on what happened during the 'trial' that resulted in Goodman Brown to be a shell of the man that he was the day prior.

My theory is that the Salem Witch Trials had such a negative impact on the town and possibly combined with the killing of innocent people the emotional tear on the individuals involved were too much to overcome thus leading to a life of misery.

Did people like John Hawthorne live a peaceful life following the trials or did the events of 1692 weigh negatively on them for the rest of their life?

So the other night I was rewatching the movie "Knight's Tale" (Very historically innacurate, I know.) and it got me wondering, would a woman be allowed to become a blacksmith in Medieval Europe?

My area of expertise is Military History, and I know jack shit about gender roles during the time.

So, would a Woman A: Be allowed to become a blacksmith

B: Ever be successful?

C: Be able to be educated sufficiently on the subject?

Other day I was reading about how Sartre criticizes the concrete unwillingness of Vichyists and Fascists in his time, about how they (I don't have the exact quote) used words meaninglessly and were unreasonable and didn't even expect you to understand or talk.

I know some strains remain, but how did the Holocaust affect these people? I want to, more generally, know what happens to a group when their core truth gets a break event.

So, I thought that after WW2, they must have suffered terribly (in terms of political support). What did they do to try to sound acceptable and how did they fail? Did they outright deny Holocaust, or did they slowly try to resurface through a more centrist position? Or what?

Recently I was planning on read William Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, but when I looked into it there has been alot criticism of that book since it was published, and in looking at that discussion I discovered Richard J. Evans Third Reich trillogy, which was absolutely incredible. So now that I'm thinking about re reading Richard Rhodes' The Making of the Atomic Bomb and/or Dark Sun, I was looking around to see, what is the general opinion of these books is among historians, are there any particularly flawed parts, and are there more modern works that take different stances than he does that I should look into?

I have a speech of Zhukov and i want to tell of his career in WWI