I've learnt about a lot of different battles from many regions and many times and massacring most of or maybe all of the entire military and civilian population of a city or region is one of the most common trends I've seen and this trend goes right back to the beginning of the Bronze Age and human warfare.

It's easy to say things like humans were vindictive or barbaric or lacking in morals or driven by bloodlust or something else presumptuous along those lines. But I think such explanations are just shallow and they wouldn't cause such a widespread trend. Surely there is a more strategic and necessary reason to abandon your compassion and kill masses of innocent noncombatants, men, women, and children.

I was thinking about this because I was playing a particular game called Unciv. I guess it's supposed to be an android copy of the Civilisation game series where you have to create an empire essentially from scratch whilst competing for dominance against other empires. During a war I was having, I had the options to puppeteer, annex, or raze one of the cities. At first I thought why would I just burn this useful city? So I annexed it. And then the city became utterly useless. It was worse than useless because occupying the city was draining my resources whilst not providing any in return since the population of the annexed city were in open defiance and refusing to work and the situation continued for some time and took its toll on my economy. It cost me more to annex it than it did to raze it and that's when I realised why the option for razing was there.

I thought it's probably more likely that killing innocents was only necessitated by protecting your own innocents as it prevents rebellion, it sends a message, but also, more importantly, it damages their economy and it prevents the defeated enemy from seeking revenge because, with a smaller population, it's harder to raise an army and to recover economically. And these advantages may have just naturally led to the brutal trend of civilians being targeted and killed. Is there more on the topic about why exactly the trend was so common?

Did they have their own private army?

Or did the king actually will help enforce for them?

As in, a slave owner who didn't like how they were treated so bought them just to give them a good life.

Wovoka's Ghost Dance spread quickly through western nations in the late 1880s. Was the religion interpreted as a real threat to colonists, for example either by creating a pan-Indian identity or concealing potential acts of resistance? Or was the religion a convenient scapegoat used in attempting to explain/cover up/excuse the genocidal violence at Wounded Knee?

Thanks in advance!

Hi! This is for a school project I'm doing where I have to examine in-depth the leadership qualities of a major historical figure. I've done the basic google search and looked through a few databases but haven't found much about Genghis Khan himself. I'd really appreciate any sources you'd have in mind! Thanks in advance!

I recently watched an excellent documentary on Lady Jane Grey (called "England's Forgotten Queen" and hosted by Helen Castor), and the introduction featured an historian saying "There is no trickier Tudor subject than Jane Grey." What makes her such a tricky or complicated subject? There have been lots of books written about her, and she's discussed in any biography of the Tudor Queens or Edward VI. What makes her so difficult a subject, if anything?

I can't understand how a little defeat in Northern France could have reflected to the outcome of the whole war. I mean Germany defeated Russia and could have easily transferred the whole army from there to the Western front.

So from what I understand, in early medieval Norse culture if you were challenged to a holmgang, you had to show up no matter what or the challenger was proven correct in their insult towards you.

But what if the challenger was a douchebag who just wanted an excuse to kill people and everyone in the community knew it? What if you were old or sick? Was there any way you could tell the challenger to fuck off and for you to keep your pride?

The whole system just seems really antithetical to making a working society and I figure there must be some exceptions.

I love studying history weather it be for school research or for my own interests. However, I have always had trouble finding legitimate primary sources on my own.

I've seen that books are a good source for collections of primary sources, however they are not always the most practical option as they take time to read which can be restricted if there is a deadline to meet and they can sometimes be a bit expensive.

Artefacts are pretty much out of the question except for museums, which I usually neither have the time nor the money for.

The place I've had the most trouble with is online research, which is mostly secondary sources and I've found it extremely difficult to find primary sources on it, which is a shame because it is the most convenient means at which I would be able find primary sources.

Am I looking at it the wrong way? Do I need to look at other means of finding primary sources? Are there any methods that can make this task easier, particularly with internet research?

Jutes, Celts, Danes, Normans etc. I’m sure I’m missing others too. Were Angles and Saxons simply the largest cultural groups? And for how long did your average Englishman still identify with their tribal origins?

I can understand far-left ideologies like communism advocating for revolutionary change (against the bourgeoisie and all that), but why is fascism considered revolutionary as well? At its core fascism is very ultraconservative, authoritarian, and value hierarchies pretty much an anthesis of any left leaning ideology. Why isn't the ideology considered a reactionary movement?

Everything I read of it:

- Burning books

- Killing monks

- Selling off their land and assets and taking the land by force

While I understand that Henry VIII and Cromwell argued it was supposed to be to support the Crown (which needed money) and that Henry VIII needed the money and was Head of the Church of England... still... I am quite surprised that in the middle of the 15th century such an incredibly anti-religious event happened with relatively little opposition.

I can only imagine if such a thing happened in other countries in today's society... societies which still retain strong religious sensibilities... then there would be outright rebellion across the country which would not stop today, tomorrow, or for decades.

And yet, when Henry VIII did all of this... it seemed like he encountered barely any opposition. Is this correct?

As a Canadian who was taught only about a sense of WW1 wartime pride, I'm particularily interested in what I might not have been taught regarding anti-war sentiments.

I'm curious if there's any sort of Greater story around this. I know that many video games have Golems based upon the DnD monster. It's been in Dungeon & Dragons since the 2nd edition which came out in the early 90s so this should satisfy the 20 year rule.

Thanks in advance

Did local law enforcement or government have the powers to force families to send their children to schools consistently?