And what defining work of history most influences your way of thinking/writing.

For me it was hearing about Mohammed Boazizi's story and wanting to understand how someone could come to do what he did, and how what happened after him happened. And so far I haven't found a book which has inspired me on a specific school of thought. I'm still getting my bachelors.

I'm assuming that during the time of Babur,Humayun and possibly even Akbar the mughal soldiers were probably mostly of Turkish,Persian or Pashtun descent. But what was the ethnic make-up of the army during Jahangir's time and beyond? Was the army mostly made up of Indian ethnicities during this time or was it still mainly compromised of Turkish,Persian and Pashtun soldiers?

For my course, I need to write an essay on any field that I wish, but the main requirement is that I look at two sides of a controversial subject. I picked Nazi Germany, and its related topics, as my subject.

I would love to look at if the atrocities committed against the Polish people was a genocide, but I am not sure if this is a controversial subject among academics.

I understand that there is the debate between functionalism and intentionalism.

Is there any major debate on the war goals of Nazi Germany?

In general, I would love to know any major debates involved in these subjects.

I have been trying research this but found nothing

Even though the British, French, German, and Spanish and Portuguese Empires (and the semi-empire of the U.S.) have all lost their largest possession overseas, like India, Indochina, Kamerun, and most of South America, to give some examples.

So why do they all control tiny islands in the middle of the ocean to this day? (British Bermuda, French Mayotte, the Spanish Canaries, Guam, to name a few.) Despite the general process of decolonization that occurred after the Second World War, these countries still own small islands in the ocean. Why?

I know this might be a stretch to fit the theme of conformity, but I think it works.

Thanks!

Both the U.S. and Australia are ex-colonial nations that used to be controlled by Britain in which a large percentage of the natives have died, both had their area expanded by the individual efforts of many citizens for whom owning guns was a necessity in order to defend against the wild animals of the frontier, both are developed nations with a large role in the global economy, and both experienced a rise in mass shootings in the end of the 20th century (and into the 21st for the U.S.). One would think that the similarities are such that either the second factor or the fourth factor would win out in both countries, but instead, the gun laws between them are very different in nature. Why? What cultural factors throughout history primed Australians to accept reforms after Port Arthur, but cause Americans to avoid enacting reforms even after shootings like Columbine and Newtown?

Of course, no political stance intended, and please do answer as neutrally as you can. Hopefully this isn't on the FAQ and is r/AskHistorians material, I'm trying to make it as much about history and as little about current events as I can.

Thanks!

We spoke about him today in class and I became pretty interested in him. I wouldn't be surprised if the whole "waging war on the ocean" and "naming his horse senator" probably aren't very accurate, but I was curious to know more about his rule. Specifically the kinds of mental things he might have done to spark such stories about him.

When was the LAST time (day, month, year?) when there was NOT a plane/jet anywhere in the sky anywhere in the world?

Obviously - lots of days like that before the Wright brothers --- and some number of days AFTER the inaugural flight... but when was the last day there were no planes in the sky?

9/11 isn't the answer - FAA grounded flights in north america - but New zealand was not affected by that incident.

My guess? either just before WWII or very soon after WWII

ps. this is a question similar to, "When was the very last time your Mom or Dad tucked you in at night?" no importance to the answer in any tangible sense - but interesting never-the-less.

Recently I reread "World without End" by Ken Follet and I noticed one episode where a father sells his daughter for a cow. Although some of the townspeople are upset by this, a monk, as well as the constable rule that the sale is lawful.

Are there facts indicating that such trades (as opposed to a forced marriage) did, in fact, happen and if yes how common were they? Where there any concerns regarding the legality of such a deal?

Forgive the medieval; I mean the time commonly referred to as the middle ages. I know examples of more modern figures or designers that sparked huge fashion trends. Do we have sources that mention similar phenomenon in, say 14th century England or 12th France, for example?

My Grandfather served for the Royal Canadian Navy and I have his Certificate of training and Service but need some help deciphering it.

I can upload a scan of it if anyone is interested in helping me out.

Thanks.

I've never understood how 1914-1919 could see such insane volumes of death and destruction, only to be followed by unprecedented levels of economic prosperity in most Western countries.

You would think that losing that much manpower and minds at the age that they would have entered the workforce would have made an immediate economic boom impossible. It's strange and sort of depressing to think that a society can lose that many lives, waste that many resources (on war), and be prosperous anyway. As if it didn't even matter much that the generation was wiped out.

I guess my question is, what were the lasting negative effects of losing so many people from 1914-1920?

So the Northwest Ordinance banned slavery in Northern states during western expansion right? But wasn't the decision to ban slavery left to the states?

I am looking for verification or sources for further research regarding a WW2 story my late father told.

Shortly after the Salerno, Italy landing and before Naples fell to the Allies, Dad was in a US Army unit that recaptured Allied prisoners held by the Germans.

The story goes that a US troop ship carrying replacements was damaged in a storm and came into Naples Bay during the time when the German Army was moving out and possession of the area was in flux. Dad's unit met the ship and the mostly-unarmed soldiers were unloaded. They spent the night in a monastery while German units patrolled the area. The next day they made their way back through Allied lines.

Are there any sources that I could use to verify the details of this story including the ship and monastery?

Also, would these markings be used by other clans, or would each clan have its own markings? Did one clan know what another clans markings meant?

I was reading Tyerman's God's War (on the crusades), and this came up in the introduction. It's not the first time I have come across it and it always seems odd that such a kingdom could be so powerful. People saying it also seem to give little evidence beyond sweeping terms.

This is what he says (page 18/19): "This applied even to the most centralized state of western Europe, the kingdom of the English. Formed through the tenth -century conquest by the kings of Wessex of their northern neighbours, England developed a distinctive system of government in which public justice, coinage, markets, taxation and defence rested with the royal authority, as did control of the church. The king's authority was mediated through local officials, a relatively efficient and sophisticated bureaucracy and a dense pattern of aristocratic and noble patronage. In Christian Europe, only in Byzantium had the techniques and institutions of government reached a more complicated and comprehensive form. "

Does this view hold any water?

Specifically between the year 1700 to the 1710's - 30's, particularly the British, French and Spanish navies.

When I think of a galleon I imagine a 17th century-styled 1 or 2 gun decked, 2 - 3 masted ship with an exaggeratedly curved bow and stern, but I'm not sure if the term galleon was still in use after the 1600's. When I imagine a man o' war or ship of the line, I attribute them with huge ships of 3 gun decks and 3 masts that are seen in late 18th century and Napoleonic-era paintings. I remember from reading British Warships in the Age of Sail 1603 - 1714, I looked at the section of the book of anything between the years 1705 - 14 and there were illustrations of warships with 3 decks labelled as ships of the line (or man o' wars, I forget which name), but also warships with only 2 gundecks labelled with the same names, so it got me confused since I have seen illustrations of 2 gun decked warships labelled as frigates, and I usually associate frigates of the time period as ships with 3 masts and 2 gundecks.

Were the terms "ship of the line" and "man o war" used loosely between kinds of warships in the early 1700's? Or were they used in a specific way, judging based on the number of cannons a ship carried and the number of masts it has?