Trying to avoid the 20-year rule, but a recent article stated that '47.6 per cent of the population in the UK identify as Christian. It indicates Britain now has the fewest number of Christians in nearly 1,500 years. The Dark Ages in most of Europe, after the fall of Rome, lasted several centuries.'

​

Is this true? Was Britain majority non-Christian for that time? And for how long? How can we be sure?

Hi all, Could anyone please recommend a good comprehensive book on Talleyrand? A biography would work as would an analysis as to how he wielded his power etc during his time under Napoleon.

Thanks!

I've heard that the printing press is one of the most important inventions in human history, but it seems incompatible with so many languages. A lot of them seem to change as you add letters to a word, or give each word a different character entirely.

So was there ever a 1700s mandarin printing press? Or was China doomed to be playing catchup with Europe and their cheap books? Did any languages (including English) change to accomadate these limitations?

Not why is there an equal number per state, that I understand, but why the number 2 in particular? Why not 1? Why not 10?

How did the framers decide upon 2? I couldn’t find this answer explicitly in Federalist 62/63 which discuss the Senate

Thanks!

I have recently been studying the history of the Achaemenid (Persian) Empire. One of the things that surprised and saddened me was how so much of our sources mainly come from the ancient Greeks and not from the Persians themselves. I have therefore trier to find unique archaeological evidence from the Persian side and happened to come across this unique surviving inscription created by the Persians and this inscription is known as the ‘Xerxes I inscription at Van’. It is in modern-day Iran and was then part of the satrapy of Armenia under Persian control. Here it is below:

2. XP1: Inscription of Xerxes, Persepolis (tr. Kuhrt, PE 11.17):

§1 A great god (is) Auramazda, who created this excellent (work) which one sees; who created happiness for man; who bestowed wisdom and energy upon Xerxes the king. §2a Xerxes the king proclaims: By the favour of Auramazda I am of such a kind that I am a friend to what is right, I am no friend to what is wrong. (It is) not my wish that to the weak is done wrong because of the mighty, it is not my wish that the mighty is hurt because of the weak. §2b What is right, that is my wish. I am no friend of the man who is a follower of the Lie. I am not hot-tempered. When I feel anger rising, keep that under control by my thinking power. I control firmly my impulses. S2c The man who cooperates, him do reward according to his cooperation. He who does harm, him I punish according to the damage. It is not my wish that a man does harm, it is certainly not my wish that a man if he causes harm be not punished. §2d What a man says against a man, that does not convince me, until I have heard testimony from both parties. §2e What a man does or performs according to his powers, satisfies me, therewith I am satisfied; it gives me great pleasure and I give much to faithful men. §2f Of such a kind (are) my intelligence and command; when you shall see or hear what has been done by me, both in the house and in battle that (is) my ability in addition to thinking and intelligence.

I find this passage extremely fascinating for numerous reasons. One reason I find it interesting is because of its position on a hill. It’s size is tremendous. I was therefore wondering what is the significance of this inscription? What also is the context for this unique archaeological translation? Thanks.

Was artillery inaccurate? Was it too difficult to tell where the trenches were? It seems like if you knew where the enemy was you could save a lot of manpower and equipment by just decimating the enemy trenches from above.

There must even have been some who were alive to have witnessed "the fall" and then became subjects of Rome again. Did they think it would last? Were their lives better as subjects of the Osgothic Kingdom or was it better to be a subject of Constantinople? What was it like for them when Rome fell again when the Byzantine Empire retreated?

So I was reading chapter 13 of Machiavelli's The Prince which talks about the use of auxiliaryforces, mixed ones, and using one's owns.

About auxiliaries he says: "These arms may be useful and good in themselves, but for him who calls them in they are always disadvantageous; for losing, one is undone, and winning, one is their captive."

He talks about Cesare Borgia and his use of mixed forces: "This duke entered the Romagna with auxiliaries, taking there only French soldiers, and with them he captured Imola and Forli; but afterwards, such forces not appearing to him reliable, he turned to mercenaries, discerning less danger in them, and enlisted the Orsini and Vitelli; whom presently, on handling and finding them doubtful, unfaithful, and dangerous, he destroyed and turned to his own men. And the difference between one and the other of these forces can easily be seen when one considers the difference there was in the reputation of the duke, when he had the French, when he had the Orsini and Vitelli, and when he relied on his own soldiers, on whose fidelity he could always count and found it ever increasing; he was never esteemed more highly than when every one saw that he was complete master of his own forces."

He later concludes that the best option is using one's own forces: "I conclude, therefore, that no principality is secure without having its own forces; on the contrary, it is entirely dependent on good fortune, not having the valour which in adversity would defend it."

​

So the question is: Are there any modern examples of someone needing the use of auxiliary or mixed forces? Was it good in the long run? Is it actually better to use one's own troops nowadays?

Im having some trouble researching native americans, and also their interactions with europeans for a game im making. Mainly interested in the late 1600s and 1700s.

Im reading a book called "masters of empire" which covers the great lakes area quite well, odawa and huron etc, but i need some good books on the iroqouis, maine and acadia, and cherokee. Its hard finding good books on them in that period.

Any help much appreciated!

As a Canadian, I was taught that the US lost because they didn’t fulfill their “manifest destiny”, similar to how the US lost the Vietnam war. Is this wrong?

Would it look like a typical medieval city or would it be more primitive? I know the game assassin's creed valhalla gets some things wrong, but did it get the architecture for houses and cities right?

Before the discovery of the america's, grain/bread seemed to be the main foodsource in the west and middle east. After the discovery, especially in northwestern countries, it came to be gradually replaced by potatoes which (i think) are easier to grow and have a higher calory yield per acre. In China, the staple food was rice, which made their agriculture more sustainable. (incredibly simplified i know)

Where are the onions in this story? onions are incredibly easy to grow and have a great caloric yield per acre.

I know that there was East and West germany, but why complicate and divide Berlin into 2? It makes no sense to me, and my history teacher also has no idea.

I was told in another thread here, that there were no cities in EM Ireland, and was wondering if I could find more information regarding that, and if so, if there were any sort of proto-urban development, or when did cities in the strict sense appear.

I am currently reading about the Ancient Near East and I am interested in the Achaemenid and Sassanian empires. Which are in your opinion the best, in-depth and most upt-to-date books on both of these empires?

Iranians tend to say that Iran ruled India. Making it seem like it was always the case.

How is it possible if Ancient Indian civilization was older than many other kingdoms?

Other than Achaemenid conquest of the Indus Valley, I don't seem to find much information on this.

Talk to any South American or European historian, Hobsbawn is seemingly the most important historian of the XX Century. I've seen him cited in numerous works about varied time periods and even outside the field of History. Heck, History majors in my alma matter used to throw a party called Age of Extremes

However, I've never seen an American author cite him (with the exception of Sokal, but that book had a French co-writer). Never seen his books recommended in this sub or BadHistory

Is this a Cold War thing? Did American historiographical traditions developed independently from Europe and Latin America?

Thanks in advance