They must have realized that Germany'd be the one getting nuked if they hadn't surrendered in May (or maybe the Americans just told em) when they saw the nuke. Was there any relief that, despite the destruction of the war, they at least avoided the nuke? Or was it just apathy, that it wasn't much different than massive normal Allied air raids in damage?

Edit: Seinfeld wasn't a small time comedian, sorry about that. I think asking about Kramer or George would have been better

I know that there ARE European dynasties that are referred to as such, but more often than not they are referred to as 'houses'. To make things more inconsistent, Mongol political factions are often also called 'houses', i.e. 'House of Ogedai', so I'm confused as to what historians had in mind when using these terms.

On the face of it both revolutions seem to be a direct result of WW I.

In both cases the monarchy was overthrown and socialist/communist movements played a critical part.

Yet in Russia the result was a civil war and ultimately a one party government under the CPSU , while in Germany the new state formed as a constitutional multiparty democracy (however fragile it turned out to be a few years later).

And any other thoughts, or opinions about this show. Also, what's the best reference for learning about vikings?

I've read that Louis XV's wife, Maria Leczinska was choosen from a list of 99 eligble princesses of Europe, do we know who was on this list, or has it been lost to time?

Hi all, I'm diving into the fascinating world of Indonesian history for a personal project of mine, and something struck me as odd while reading the wikipedia article about Srivijaya (and in extend, Mataram) kingdom.
As I understand correctly, Srivijayan kings were mostly Buddhist and were important for the spread of Buddhism in the region. They also ordered the construction of many Buddhist temples, like the famous Borobudur.

But Since its rise to power, Srivijayan thrived on conquest and expension through warfare. Take for example king Dharanindra, the king that started construction of Borobudur, he also had the title of Wairiwarawiramardana or "the slayer of courageous enemies." Srivijaya conquered kingdoms in Sumatra, Java and the Malay peninsula, as well as raided the coasts of Thailand, Cambodia and Vietnam. I also read that Srivijaya raided Papua, Australia and even africa for more manpower to work their fields.

We seldom see Buddhist expensionist empires, for conquest clashes with core ideas like non-violence of Ahimsa. Even Ashoka, who was apparently a ruthless and succesfull conquerer before his conversion to Buddism, stopped his conquest when he started following Buddhist teachings. So, how can we treat the Srivijayan kings both as Buddhists as well as conquerors? And if the population was mostly Buddhist, how did they cope with this duality? Was it because Indonesian religion was more of an eclectic mix of Buddhist/ Hindu / native teachings and rulers only practiced elements of a religion that suited their rule, or is it something else?

Thanks in Advance!

The way I understand it, and correct me if I'm wrong on this count, is that the Aztecs and their neighbors would engage in ritualized "flower wars" that would yield human sacrifices in lieu of engaging in a full armed conflict.

What prevented the losers from escalating when they didn't achieve their goals? what made these flower wars so significant? I can't imagine modern nations ever agreeing to solve a dispute by means of a small military exercise.

So I realised my knowledge of ancient Egypt history is essentially:

"So you have a few kingdoms pop up up and down the Nile, they go to war a few times unite and split up until they're eventually unified (also a bunch of semi mythical pharaohs), Egypt goes to war with the Hittites over the levant and then have a peace treaty, then they get raided by sea people and the whole infrastructure of bronze age Egypt sorta colapses but not to the extent of the rest of the Mediterranean; fast forward a few centuries and Persia conquers Egypt, then Alexander conquers Persia, then Alexander dies and Ptolemy dibs Egypt, a bunch of shenanigans later and boom Egypt is a Roman province."

I feel like historians and archaeologists are more interested in figuring out what was happening in Greece during the Mediterranean dark age rather than Egypt which was still doing pretty well.

I know that Europeans would execute other nobles like the English did to the French during the 100 Years War but those appear to be rare compared to the times they simply kept opposing monarchs alive. For example, after the Battle of Pavia in Emperor Charles V of Spain had King Francis I of France in his custody and did nothing to harm him. Meanwhile, 40 years later in India at the Battle of Talikota the Deccan Sultans were more than happy to execute Aliya Rama Raya, the leader of the Vijayanagara Empire. This also happened quite a bit in China and was a constant in Japan. What lead to the European monarchs treating other heads of state and even lower ranking nobility with such leniency?

The wikipedia says that Susa was the capital of Elam, written something like Elymais in the Greek texts. But Greco-Roman reports of the deaths of Antiochus iii and Antiochus iv seem to confuse these sites. Antiochus iii goes beyond Susa before being overwhelmed by the fierce tribes of the Elymains according to the Geographer Strabo. This seems odd since coming from Babylon he Susa would have been on the far side of Elam if it was still within Elam and beyond Elam if they were separate entities. Strabo does say, shortly on, that each person knows his own territory the best though.

At any rate Alymais must refer to a satrapy, not a city, so I would assume that most eras the capital would be Susa. But some writings suggest the two had become separate entities during the Seluecid rule somehow.

Are these ancinet Greek sources simply wrong? Is the Wikipedia page wrong?

The question is self-explanatory, Could the Emperor Of Japan take the Title of Shogun for himself, and If they could, then why didn't they? Why would they choose to pick someone else for the most powerful title of Japan, when they could have to choose themselves?

I understand this is probably a hard question to answer and depends on a lot of factors. The reason I ask and what I'm trying to understand is I have read various accounts of Germans on the Eastern front and even as early as December 1941 it seems like the Germans were struggling for supplies and food.

Lots of the memories are packed with them being in a house and the Russians sneaking up to the village and them being trapped inside the house etc.

Or being overran and 12 of them running back to the next village and setting up sentry positions.

I used to assume that a division would all be together. Able to cover each other. I expected a village to have thousands of men to defend and hold the perimeter.

But the accounts I'm reading make it seem like everything is very spread out. That you have maybe 20 Germans to a village.

Would a regiment be spread out over a vast area or would it be more likely to be closely together?

The picture painted by the books I have read is that apart from major battles at stalingrad or kursk etc. A German on the front line at the Eastern front is likely to have found themselves very exposed. Maybe 20 of so men covering a ridge with miles to the nearest friendly troops?

I overheard a documentary on History Channel (I think) talk about Heron of Alexandria, and his amazing steam powered inventions like automatic doors and the automatic theatre. It would seem that the ancient Greeks knew how to make tanks capable of holding steam pressure, so why didn't this invention go further?

Was it just that they didn't think of it? Was the metal they used too fragile or expensive for larger scale industralisation? Were they conquered?

Is there even a singular answer?

I just wanna preface I am not trying to downplay what the Germans did. But what I don't understand is why Germany had the allies declare war on them for invading Poland, but the soviet union invaded Poland with the Germans, and would also invade Finland, but war was not declared on them. In addition to this invasion, similar to the Germans, the soviets would round up and exterminate any poles that they saw as a political threat to their control over Eastern poland. So why didn't the allies declare war on the soviets too, and why weren't the soviets atrocities towards the Poles called out during the end of the war?

I've seen a lot of "corset myth debunking" in the historical costuming community. These usually go against the idea that corsets were uncomfortable or tight-laced, as opposed to just part of the undergarments people wore either for comfort or fashion, like bras. So far, so good. But the corollary to this debunking usually seems to be "there is absolutely no woman who would ever go in public without proper undergarments in this era," usually as a response to the obviously misguided contemporary "she's a spunky woman who doesn't wear a corset!" media trope. This leads to my question. How uncommon was not wearing a corset in Victorian England? Was it really never done? Were their legal consequences to not wearing a corset? (I'm basically asking the question as a woman who never wears a bra for comfort reasons, even in places where not wearing a bra is still seen as uncouth, like work or at church or in court. So the idea that 'corsets were worn by absolutely everyone' does make me skeptical.)

Edit: I'm also open to hearing about corsets in other eras, I just picked Victorian England because it seems to have a lot of corset discourse re: tropes.

Did New Swedish culture survive in North America, and if it did how long?

Watching the new season of Kimetsu no Yaiba, set during the 1910s-1920s I believe, and the character Tengen Uzui is explaining how poor families sell their girls to brothels. Given that brothels operate legally/openly in this period, my assumption is that the sale of daughters to brothels must be legal? If so then, given slavery isn't legal, what exactly is happening in such an exchange?

Of course, they might be acquiring the girls illegally and no one in the government cares, in which case my question is moot I suppose.