I'm not trying to be political I'm just curious if this kind of thing has ever happened before and under what presidency and circumstances. Thanks

I was doing some light reading on Alexander's conquest into Asia and it seemed weird to me that he would go east instead of west, since the goal of every other great European power to want to first conquer Europe, then conquer Asia. Was there a sound reason behind this?

Considering approximately only 10k German Americans and under 2k Italian Americans out of the possibly millions were interned. While over 110k of the 130k Japanese Americans living in mainland US ended up in the camps.

Is this an indirect result from the Pearl Harbor attacks since German and Italian forces primarily focused attacks in the European and African continents? Was it complications with establishing German or Italian ethnicity amongst Caucasian Americans?

I've heard this statistic before, but am having trouble finding anything at all researched or sourced to back it up.

Is this sort of statistic accurate? How would you even go about testing its accuracy?

[deleted]

Did no one bring it up? Not one of his political opponents?

I imagine it would have been useful in World War II.

EDIT: Of course, I meant cease, and not seize....

My family has been in Quebec since the 1670s, and most of the French Quebec speakers had their family immigrate in the 1600s or at least before 1763.

All talks of immigration to Canada between 1763 and 1945 talk about British subjects moving to Canada, apart from some Chinese immigrants in British Columbia and a few other sources (such as American slaves fleeing to Canada to avoid slavery)

No one seems to talk about French people moving to Canada during that period.

I know that there was a regular influx of French Bishops from France named by the Vatican during at least a portion of that period: it was one of the concessions of James Murray (first British governor), which was codified in the Act of Quebec a few years later (1774).

But what about other French residents?

What about a peasant who was trying to go to the Nouvelle-France and was planned to go in 1764?

Was it illegal for them to come to Canada?

If it was, when did it stop being illegal, because there are immigrants from France right now in Canada.

Thinking Classical Greece, pre-Philip II. Economically it seems like Persia should have annihilated Greece, were their military defeats just luck for the Greeks?

I know the military history, trying to understand how it could have gone that way.

It just strikes me as an odd thing to take with you.

Would they have manufactures some themselves?

Not sure if this is an appropriate question for this sub but I might as well try.

[deleted]

as the war progressed, did American units in prior campaigns and with combat experience get moved around throughout the theater to spearhead offensives and invasions elsewhere?

There have been so many genocides only in the last century yet the only one we always hear about and discuss in the one perpetrated by nazi germany. What happened that the holocaust "stole the picture" while we all become so good at forgetting the others? Is it that the average heart can only stand the idea of one major event of this sort or we just don't care enough to listen about the others? This also comes from the feeling that today there are so many holocaust deniers as if genocides where not a very plausible thing to happen between humans. Has the average holocaust denier even heard of any of the other major instances of mass cultural erradication in the last century?

Hello all,

I saw u/mweuste 's question about medieval historiography and would like to similarly ask rev/napoleon scholars for their suggestions. I intend to pursue a doctorate in this field, but my library is pretty small; a couple works by Chandler, a couple by Furet, Toqueville's Ancien Régime and the Revolution (easily the most useful book in my library so far) and a couple isolated books on military history of the napoleonic wars.

I understand the scholarship is not much of an overlap for revolutionary and napoleonic studies, but I do have a significant interest in both equally for their military, political, and social/cultural history (have little interest in economic/institutional history), any suggestions would be greatly appreciated!

Also I know this subreddit (at least appears to be) mostly geared to english-language historiography, but I would also like any suggestions and insight on french works and historiography on the subject, language is not a barrier

We know that when the Spanish, Portuguese, and English (among others, they were just the three major nations per my understanding) explorers and settlers hit the Americas they brought decimating diseases with them. But viking explorers landed approximately 500 (ish) years earlier. Wouldn't they have brought the same Eurasian diseases with them?

Is there evidence of a first plague (or set of horrible diseases) with the vikings and then a second when the southern europeans colonized?

Hi there.

I've been searching unsuccessfully for information about this period (in english). I can find a lot of information about the viking period, but I am looking for the periods before that. Early iron age.

I am aware of some of the Roman texts about the "barbarian tribes", but most of that seems very bare-bones and fanciful... (and roman-centric)

I am especially interested in anything that can give light on cultural behaviours - daily life, beliefs, trade contacts etc.

If you could point me in the direction of some ebooks on related topics I would be even more grateful!

I'm trying to understand why Americans seem to be especially suspicious of government, fearful of tyranny, and focused on freedom - while these issues seem low priorities in other Western countries.

I don't know how related this character is to the American Revolution, but it's something Americans often tell me. "We arm ourselves now due to our character being formed by the experience of the Revolution" is something you often hear.

Which leads me to wonder - why revolt in the first place? Why was independence, and self representation, such a big deal in the American colonies, and not elsewhere? Did Britain rule differently there? Was there something different, perhaps going back to the earliest settlers, that meant things were different?

My country (Australia) looked upon being part of the British Empire with pride - and Canada and others seemed not to have much of a problem with it.

Any brief information that can help me understand and trace these unique American tendencies would be greatly appreciated!

Compared to the American founders, did Robespierre have a different view on human nature? Why did he turn to terror and violence to eliminate evil factions (with the assumption that he and his allies were inherently virtuous), as opposed to accepting the inherent evil in human nature and thus adopting a system of checks and balances to counter the evil of factions, as the Americans did?