EDIT: To be precise, what I mean is what happened to Samurais and their families after feudalism was abolished in Japan.

I'm curious about this even though I'm skeptical about the value of oral history

[deleted]

Namely, has Thailand ever attempted to conquer Peninsular Malaysia?

I can't really find a conclusive answer other than that they are left over from a time when these small 'countries' where the norm. But all those other ones faded away, except these. Why is that? Is it just too much trouble for such a small space of land and France, Germany and Italy just never bothered?

My folks live in an old Northeastern American home, built in 1900. After getting talking about the various renovations they did, it was brought up that their electrician had informed them of 75 mysterious phone lines the house had; they all led to either the basement or attic. Now I have no clue what use those lines could have had, but it seems suspicious. Anyone have any insights or speculation as to why they would need so many lines in such discreet locations of the home?

My father lived in Mozambique when the war started, he says it was because black people/ communists started killing white people, but from what i learned in history it was because the africans wanted independence from portugal. ´ Who's right though?
I can honestly say his trustworthy, having won a "cruz de guerra" in 4th company of comandos, ( distinctive war medal), while also having my grandparents confirming the story.

The U.S. has been heavily engaged in foreign affairs and international peacekeeping since WWII. In the 19th century most of our international conflicts were in response to piracy, or were attempts of imperialism. Were there any incidents where we intervened in foreign affairs for the diplomatic reasons of peacekeeping we so often see today? Could our 19th century global policy be considered isolationist, and if so, did it benefit or hinder the prosperity of our nation?

No racism here, just a question

In light of the META thread about 1997, mentioning that Harry Potter is now up for discussion, I have a Harry Potter question. As a fairly avid book reader in the 1990s, but already beyond their intended age range, the first I was aware of the series was a news item about kids getting all excited about the next book in the series, and all the advertising only came later.

So, my question, was Harry Potter popularity fundamentally a grassroots thing, or did the first publisher really push the books?

I've been reading lately that he actually was a proponent for laissez faire, and that surprised me greatly. I've always took it upon myself that he was actually a protectionist with a strong federal power.

After all did he not regulate the market, close some banks and what's more striking to me, contracted the federal reserve and re-balanced the budget by cutting government spendings in 1937? And that OUT OF FEAR of inflation, so was he not trying to protect the economic flow?

I'm at loss. I'd appreciate any clarification on the matter, thank you!

The most well-known uses of tanks during WWI were on the Western Front, but were they used on other fronts (Italy, Gallipoli, Eastern Front, etc.)?

Elementary schoolchildren are most certainly taught about how the "heroic, democratic Greeks fought off the tyrannous Persians and the day was saved by Leonidas." The Achaemenid Empire was pretty big at the time though, and Greece was tiny in comparison (I don't know how they were wealth-wise though), so was the defeat a heavy blow to the Persians or just some unimportant frontier war among many other, more important fronts? Sort of like how the Battle of Tours has been hyped up by Euro-centrists but in reality was an unimportant battle for the overextended Umayyads?

EDIT: important to unimportant