The perceptions of the different economic and government structures, specifically fascism, must have evolved over the course of history as historical events unfolded right?

Let's say I meet a random Italian - could I safely say he had an ancestor that lived in Italy during the Roman Empire?

As you know, tanks saw their first of many actions during WW1. Both Entente and Alliance started to include tanks during battles since 1916. Mark tanks of the Brits, Renault FT 17 of the French, A7V of the Germans and many more not to be forgotten. My question is that were tanks really the craze killers that mowed down thousands of enemies in a blink of an eye depicted in movies and video games (Battlefield 1 baby!) or nothing more than propaganda machines? Also, I would love to know how soldiers or the homefront viewed these bulky beasts. PS: This my first submission on Reddit so sorry for the shit quality if I fuck this post big time!

I know that illiteracy in the peasantry is something that the European chroniclers exaggerated, like you see in the peasants' letters from the Great Rising in England, but Jewish rites of passage include getting up and reading Hebrew at synagogue; do we have evidence for higher literacy rates, at least Hebrew literacy, among European Jews in the high to late middle ages?

Why did Luther receive support from political rulers for his religious protest during the 1520s? Why would they risk messing with the powerful Church to support him?

Why did the Venetians make the crusaders attack the Byzantine Empire instead of "Islamic Empire of the Century"?

[deleted]

[deleted]

I was watching Band of Brothers for the nth time recently, and in his interview, (I believe) Carwood Lipton said that a few men in his town committed suicide for being 4f. If men were willing to kill themselves becuase they couldn't even serve in the lowliest, non-combat roles, why would the draft even be enacted? Support for the war obviously swelled in the United States after Pearl Harbor and the declaration of war by Germany. Did the Roosevelt administration feel that not enough men would volunteer?

Countries in Europe and Japan look back at the 2nd half of 19th century and the early 20th with shame for being imperialistic and colonizing Africa and other parts of the world. This doesn't seem to happen in the USA, during the McKinley and Roosevelt period. Why so? What is the change between Europe and Japan with the USA?

I recently listened to the AskHistorians podcast about Buddhism in Tibet and Bhutan, and the rise and machinations of people like Pagsam Wangpo and Ngawang Namgyal. I found this endlessly fascinating, particularly the way theological justification was given for things like resolving successions and inheritance, and the way Buddhism wove itself into the political systems of the area at the time.

I want to know more about the history of political Buddhism, if such a phrase can be used, but I don't know where to look to find good sources. To clarify, my interest doesn't stop at the Himalayan region; for instance, I'm also aware that Buddhism was a big deal for the political climate of Japan in the first millennium, and very much interested in knowing more about that, too, as well as similar history as it concerns other parts of East Asia. What are some good sources that are reasonably accessible to someone who is not a historian and lacks access to university libraries and the like?

I know it sounds like the beginning of a bad joke, but is there any real difference, or are they just synonyms for "poor person"

I understand the concept and how hosts and guests conducted themselves once they had met, but how would this relationship have been first established? Would a traveler just go to some random stranger's house and request xenia?

In one of the promotional trailers for the game and possibly the game itself (haven't played it yet) there was a soldier depicted wearing full plate metal armor and wielding a machine gun. Is there any historical evidence that this kind of shock troop was deployed or is it just fiction for the sake of being cool in game?

I've always considered the phrase 'cold war' to cover from post ww2 (Truman Doctrine perhaps?) to 1991 when the soviet union collapsed. I'm readying a book (really just a collection of questions and essays) published in 1972 called The Cool War, in which the author Robert Imlay says the following about the Cuban Missile Crisis:

".... this point has to be established at the outset and with it a companion concept that the crisis marks the end of what is commonly called the Cold War".

He goes on to make that point that the threat from the USSR was still present in other ways, etc, so he isn't saying the conflict abated in any way, just that the period known as the 'Cold War' was over. Was this a common or even uncommon perception among people at the time?

Salazar was exceptionally traditional and reactionary, even compared to his neighbor and ally Francisco Franco. In Portugal the monarchy was overthrown in October 1910, just over 20 years before he came to power - since he was such a traditionalist I am very confused as to why he didn't restore the monarchy in Portugal. One of the biggest reasons for the nationalist uprising in Spain to begin with was the restoration of the monarchy, we're monarchist feelings just not as strong and Portugal is they were in Spain?

Also, the second question. How did Salazar and Franco interact with the right wing regimes in the former Iberian colonies in South and Central America? I'm especially interested in Salazar's interactions with the Vargas government in Brazil 1930-1945/1951-1954 as well as Franco's relationship with Alfredo Stroessner (Paraguay), Rafael Trujillo (Dominican Republic) and Juan Peron in Argentina during his first term (1946-55).

Thank you!