Everything I'm reading about it has a ton of similarities, hard to see the exact difference between the two concepts.

[deleted]

The 18th century is generally seen as the point when the bourgeoisie - merchants, craftsmen, middle class - started to assert itself more as a 'bloc' in Europe (and the United States), a 'politically progressive social class' pushing back against more monarchical order, and laying the groundwork for their real explosion onto the scene at the end of the century and into the 19th.

Did Russia undergo a similar progression of the urban bourgeoisie population during that period? The impression of Russia in that period is of a country that was always more oppressive (see: Serfdom), and always a little behind her western neighbors, playing catch-up with the rest of Europe in many ways. So was there the same rising middle class? Did they have similar progressive aspirations? Were they able to influence decisions made in the 'halls of power'?

[18th Century] - [Russia] - [Business]

[deleted]

Was there an unwritten (or written, for that matter) code protecting messengers? Was killing them frowned upon to the point that even absolute rulers or warlords would face some opprobrium? Or was this a job that nobody wanted because it was totally unsafe?

On that last point, a followup: who became messengers, and why? Obviously, there were high-level delegates and envoys, but I'm thinking more of the "little guy," -- some poor schmuck who has to tell Attila that he'd better get out of Roman territory, for example.

From Black Death burial pits to the elegant and macabre transi tombs that thundered home the message of temporality and decay, the way humans treat their dead can often reveal a lot about a culture.

As we approach Halloween, let's talk about the graves and graveyards of the past!

Next week: Making Saints out of Sinners

My vague uneducated gathering is that at the start of the American Civil War the South was at a considerable disadvantage, was this just due to population? With the south having the slaves they couldn't have been at an economic disadvantage, or was the east coast more prosperous. What exactly was the power difference between the two the day before the Civil War.

Thinking primarily about the war in the east with all the large rivers like the Volga but also the Rhine.

Were nations capable of building large enough pontoon bridges to sustain offensives and the like?

How important were rivers to the combat in world war 2?

Thank you.

[deleted]

Those people were left to clean up everything, I imagine it took generations to overcome the shock. We're talking thousands of dead and dying, not to mention cleaning up the gore. Yikes!

It's a phrase I often hear, that battles were few. That most conflict consisted of sieges and raids. My question is centered around raids. Since my original perception of medieval warfare comes from games like Total War, I'm biased towards a thinking centered around pitched battles, but I would like to know how raids functioned. How were they different?

• What kinds of raids were there? Were there regional differences?
• How did medieval raids function? Was it planned or opportunistic?
• What was the scale? Was it 30 guys on one small town, or 30 guys spreading out over a large agrarian area?
• What was the target? Was it always civilians, cattle, etc. or did it focus on directly crippling an enemies military operations?
• Who participated in these raids? The knightly class only? Serjeants and henchmen? A whole army full of farmers? Mercenaries?
• Did they use horses? Sword&buckler? Torches? Or weapons which is suited in array, like a spear, pike or halberd?

Frame of the question: An overall ancient or medieval European or Middle-Eastern focus is good. Spain between 1100-1500 is even better.

I'm looking for books that give an insight into what life was like for normal people, over 100 years ago (kind of vague, but I don't mind which time-period/geographic area). Which books/sources can you recommend? I'd like to know what the routine was like, what the social life was like, what they spent their time thinking about, questioning, observing etc.

Thanks!

My understanding of Russian history has a pretty big gap between the early shifting of regional hegemony from Novgorod to Kiev to Muscovy (and even then, quite a pedestrian one at that) to eventual Mongol subjugation, and when they ended up taking over everything they have now. We're they actively sending out explorers and military missions in the 1600's to go subjugate people like the Kazakhs, Siberians, and Mongolians?

In wars, and in regional conflicts, armies "capture" cities. In the medieval period, or wherever city walls would be common, it's reasonable to quarantine via blocking the main gates. How would this be done in the 20th century, where walls are far less common, how would one go about capturing a city like Mosul (just an example)? One couldn't possibly have the manpower to cover every square inch of space. Are there specific facilities one would have to "secure" in order to obtain possession of a city? I find it hard to conceptualize. I ask here because I presume that the practice has not changed dramatically in the past century. Further, what does "occupying" a city after capture look like, in broad terms?

Is there a checklist for ensuring that the city is now "yours?" Any specific ideas would be very much appreciated.

[deleted]

He was born in the Archbishopric of Salzburg, which is nowadays part of Austria and was during his birth part of the HRE and under the influence of Vienna.

Yet you can find many people saying: "technically he wasn't Austrian."

How would historians define his heritage?

Bonus question: If it turns out that Mozart was not Austrian, wouldn't that make Nikola Tesla one?