I don't see many sources refer to Tsar Nicholas II and his regime as fascist, but they seem to fit the bill: right-wing authoritarian nationalists. Would it thus be correct to refer to the regime as fascist even with his, albeit ineffective, concessions (Duma, etc)?

This may be more of a question for r/AskScience, but I thought I'd try here first. I understand this would be highly dependent on the conditions the wood was in, and the type of wood, but is there a time range where we say, "There's no way this artifact made of wood existed before X."?

What was the origin of the 'modern' gym? My modern I mean lifting weights in a routine in order to become muscular .

In the games Rome total war and Rome II total war the roman unit Velites are depicted with wolf pelts on their heads. Is this historical accurate?

This is my first time posting here so I apologize if there are any mistakes. I'm curios regarding the historical accuracy of the movie "Kingdoms of heaven", is it purely based around the early middle ages? What things have been added or taken out to make the movie better? such things.

Hey does anyone know of any books on Kieft's war? Or books/sources for info on any Lenape wars?

Just some random Internet exploring on Wikipedia I ran into this sentence, "The Romans, who built a colony in Aléria, considered Corsica as one of the most backward regions of the Roman world." I tried to Google some more on the issue but to no avail and that is why I'm here now. I'm just extremely curious to why of all places the Romans would consider Corsica the most backward. It's fairly close to the Rome, more so than other conquered lands. Plus with all the people's and cultures under Roman control Corsica stuck out the most "backwards."

I was recently reading about the French Revolution, and finding it interesting how it began with ideals such as reason and liberty, and resulted in such things as Terror being, explicitly, official government policy for a while, as well as a lot of things that we might call war crimes today.

That is, the way the French Revolution began, and the goals it sought, seemed to me very similar to the American Revolution, and it apparently did end in a 'good' democracy, but there were some horrible things that happened in its name along the way.

So I wonder -- what horrible things happened in the American Revolution? I'm curious about either side, but especially about regrettable actions taken in the name of liberty -- what we might call crimes committed by the "good guys".

For context, I am American, myself. And of course I was raised with the mythology of Washington, Jefferson, et. al. as giants and heroes. But of course they were people. As were those who supported their cause. And people are notoriously -- notorious, sometimes; and especially in war times.

EDIT: To put on point on this: What were some actions taken during the American Revolution, especially in the name of its high-minded ideals, that would seem today to be excessive or even atrocious? That is, even if they don't rise to the level of "war crimes", what should I learn more about along this line of inquiry? If there's not much to report, why should that be?

I read a lot about Marie Antoinette's life and I've always felt some kind of sadness when doing so. I understand that there was the diamond necklace affair, the manipulation of her son, and a spread of pamphlets that accused Marie Antoinette of indecency, but I'm wondering more about her time as Queen prior to the Revolution. I often see debate about her spending and morals and some texts seem to contradict others.

In what ways did Marie Antoinette take part in the downfall of France's monarchy? Why didn't Austria step in? And lastly, after realizing how distorted her trial was, how does France remember her today?

From what I understand, the Chinese believed that, anyone other than themselves, were barbarians.

I have heard the argument that "whites were slaves too" for various reasons, not important to the question. But is it true? The only sources I can find are from blogs that appear to be racially biased one way or the other.

Archaeologists know quite a bit about the cannibalized remains that they found in the well in Jamestown. They know she was a 14 year old girl, when she arrived at the settlement, where she came from and what she ate growing up, and that she was learning to sew based on groves in her teeth.

So why aren't they able to find her identity? I thought the ships going to Jamestown listed all of their passengers. If so, how many 14 year old girls arriving on a ship on X date could there be? Am I wrong about passenger lists?

Hello, I was surfing wikipedia and came across the "Statute of Kalisz." It was a Polish legal document from the 1200's, and it has some statements that seem rather revolutionary to me based on my small knowledge of the high middle ages. For example:

...Should a Jew be taken to court, not only a Christian must testify against him, but also a Jew, in order for the case to be considered valid.

However, the article also mentions that some fellow (Professor Romuald Hube) has decided that the statute is a fabrication that was written at a later date. I was unable to find much further information, and the page about Romuald Hube that is linked is written in Polish.

So, was this statute most likely a fabrication? Maybe a fabrication? Or are Romuald Hube's criticisms disregarded? Thanks!

edit: "...Jews living in Poland equal rights..." sorry!