And how did this technique have such an effect?

"A continent ravaged by war coupled with the retreat of the church from secular life." "The precipitous fall of the French Ruling class."

This question is posed on popular television show Bojack Horseman. I am a secondary social studies teacher in the US and would love to know more about it for lesson planning and my own curiosity.

My thinking is:

1. That feudalism laid the seeds for the consolidation of land control leading to the nation-state system.
2. The radical inequality between the second and third (and to a certain extent first and third) Estates resulted in the toppling of that nation-state's monarchy.
3. The crusades laid the social and economic backdrop for the crusades. The literature recovered from said crusades brought forth the revitalization of Western, largely secular thought and the enlightenment.

This is my first time posting here and I think I've followed the rules. I will happily attempt to refine the question if it is too broad or if it requires any other correction!

P.s. You historiand and your Sub are amazing. Thanks for everything you do here.

Is there a particular reason that the Song of Deborah in the Book of Judges and the story of Judith are so similar? Were there particular modes of historical narrative that existed in ancient Israel?

I'm looking for a good book on, as the title says, the history of Scotland and its clan system to give to my Dad this Xmas, as he's recently been increasingly interested in talking about his family history. Can anyone recommend a good, readable book that would cover that area? Thanks in advance.

It seems as though from Antiquity up to the Early Modern Period steppe peoples would periodically invade China, Persia, India, and Europe. After the 15th century though, it seems like this came to a halt. While I was reading about this on wikipedia, it seemed like one factor might be the rise of "Gunpowder Empires" - the Ottomans, Safavids, and Mughals. Were these empires too technologically strong for future steppe people to conquer? Did their own roots in the steppe give them some advantage?

[deleted]

I hope this question is allowed. I know that contemporary issues aren't welcomed, but my question is mostly centered around those two states' histories and changes from the period of WW2 until this era, so I think that my question sufficiently fits into a historical perspective.

Anyways, title for reference! Comparing how militaristic and expansionist the two nations were, they now are nearly pacifistic and inwardly oriented. Has there been any research analyzing these shifts of national consciousnesses?

[deleted]

[deleted]

As the title says, why is an enemy in control of the Low Countries scary? Do they have some advantages over attacking Britain? I'm asking about primarily the time period around Napoleon, but I don't know if the answer would change across the years. A side question, is this why no major power ever really controlled the Netherlands area (except the Von Habsburgs and of course Napoleon), because of British interference?

From what I read, for many years the state of Granda in southern Spain had a Jewish vizier named Shmuel HaNagid who ran things quite well, and a flourishing Jewish community developed. However, a few years after he died, a huge anti-Semitic riot erupted and thousands of Jews were killed.

What exactly happened? The sources I read suggested that the Muslims were angry that his son Joseph took over as vizier, and that the Jews were getting "uppity," not knowing their place, and being treated as the equals of Muslims. Is that accurate?

To clarify and elaborate: Was there philosophical agreement on the nature of the militia? Was it a creature of the federal government, of its state, or of the people? In what sense--and by whom--was it to be "regulated"? Also, if you can answer, what has happened to the militia as an institution and its role in constitutional law concerning individual gun rights? That's a lot--feel free to focus on just one part. Thanks.

[deleted]

Roman gladiator games had diverse categories of entertainment. Broadly speaking these could include lethal combat, animal fights, and mock naval battles.

In my mind, these deadly games seem unique to Roman culture. Is this really the case?

Ideally from both Allies and Central Powers/Axis (or even major participant nation if you feel inclined). I do mean combat not just bombing runs that happened to hit a headquarters somewhere, unless such an event was especially notable.

Thanks!

The book list doesn't have a General section for Japan. The closest is Japan Emerging edited by Karl Friday, an anthology of various experts on periods from the ancient past to the 19th century in Japan.

I'd like a book by a single author that provides a good general overview of Japanese history, if anyone could recommend one. Thanks!

I'm not sure it even started in the 20s and would certainly appreciate some history as to how and when the practice started but it's continually mentioned in movies and TV of the time that it was considered extremely rude not to remove your hat in someone's home. Why? How did some sort of morality get attached to hat-wearing and what exactly was the transgression?

As I understand, the idea of the Vienna council was to bring back the order pre-1789, like restating the French monarchy. Yet the Holy Roman Empire wasn't brought back.

EDIT: And, as a new doubt that I got, why didn't Wilhelm take it in 1871 in Versailles?