I mean, look at China, Russia, US, African nations, middle east etc. They still have massive conflicts while Europe went so far in economic and social integration. How did this happen ?

I'd like to learn about events in American history might have impacted other ethnicities, such as Asian-American history, for instance.

For example, I remember when learning about the Red Scare in high school, we predominantly focused on the impact on Eastern Europeans, but it seems that it would have been interesting to learn about how it impacted Chinese residents, for instance, especially in context of the Yellow Peril.

I imagine there are a lot of events that are typically glossed over in a conventional American history class because of a Eurocentric/"white" focus which I would be very interested in learning about as well.

I am particularly interested in the 20th century and beyond, but a general U.S history book that reframes U.S history from this different perspective would be fascinating.

Alot, if not most of the current olympical diciplines have some military significance. Like the marathon being for long distance correspondence, wrestling to train hand to hand combat and the pole vault (im guessing) for sieges. But what I cant Imagine, is what use the triple jump might have had. Clearing a distance with a skip and a jump doesnt seem all that useful to me.

Did it have any use at all?

Hi! I've read quite a few good posts here related to this question, but they mostly touch on how noble families emerged in the aftermath of the fall of the western Roman empire.

My question could predate that. How did one become/ascend to kingship? When did chiefdom end and kingdom begin?

Anthropologically, between Tribe and State, there is a political configuration called a Chiefdom. Based on what I've read, most times when historians refer to as a King in antiquity, they would be what anthropologists would called a Chief, instead. The main difference being the complexity of state-apparatuses.

For example, the 'Kings' of Ireland would be better called Chiefs in this framework, correct? They didn't really rule a state and more like a loose confederation of villages/tribes/warrior-bands, with very little government bureaucracy. Further, most 'Kings' of Ireland had a tributary system and a hierarchy of kings. Same goes with Genghis Khan (Khan itself is translated to chief). It wasn't until he found Karakorum when you can honestly call the Mongol Empire a true state, and thus him a ruler of a state (i.e. a King).

However, upon reading some more—texts from both Anthropology and History, there seems to be a definite distinction between the two—or am I just confused. For example, Caratacus has been called both Chieftain and King in different historical sources. Boudica is almost always called a Queen (despite her being what I would call a Chieftess).

So is this simply politics? I mean, the historical writers and chroniclers would call such-and-such ruler a Chief if they consider the realm to be small/insignificant/primitive? And King if they want consider them great (i.e. perhaps to emphasize the conquest of a worthy adversary)?

Thanks!

I see lots of questions about long-distance travel within the Roman Empire, but couldn't find anything about local travel, such as within the city of Rome and its immediate outskirts.

What sort of work commute would a Roman find feasible/tolerable? Did anyone, e.g., work the in Ostia but live east of the city and take a horse or ferry to work and back? Was it typical for some Romans to spend a few hours commuting every day, or was the shopkeeper-living-above-his-shop the norm, or both?

For leisure, how far (or for how long) would a Roman be willing to travel to have dinner with a friend, visit a family member (ignoring special occasions like weddings or imperial invitations), visit the baths, etc.? Are there any examples of people lamenting that their loved ones are too far away for frequent visits, when they're actually only two hours away by cart? Did anyone go to the baths an hour away instead of the baths half an hour away, e.g. to hang out with a better group of people?

Reflections on the Revolution in France was published in November of 1790, yet Louis XVI was King of France until 1791 (and King of the French until 1792). It seems like Burke, for his moderate liberal inclinations, came out against the revolution very early on, even while the revolutionaries still aimed to maintain a monarchy.

How did Burke's views on the revolution in France evolve over time? Did he have strong sympathies for the moderate-liberal factions, like the Gironde? Thanks!

Besides being only four of them, didn't Japan experience a booming economy along side the Four Asian tigers, warranting the title?

I'm working on a living history outfit to be a Magach 3 crewman, and I can't seem to find any sources on what they were issued as a combat uniform. The pictures I've found suggest a US-style Nomex coverall, black combat boots, and a US style Combat Vehicle Crewman helmet, often with what appear to be 1944 pattern dust goggles.

How close is my photo interpretation?

Talking mostly from a period ranging 1500s (Age of Exploration) to around 1800s (End of Napoleonic period) in a European context.

What traits, innovations, battlefield tactics, etc would you say consistently made people like Karl XII, Napoleon, Alexander Suvorov, and Frederick the Great so dangerous on a battlefield and consistently successful in comparison to their less-successful counterparts?

These non contingus parts of the French Empire always seemed a bit odd to me. What was the plan with them?
In fact, what was the plan with all the non french speaking parts of the empire far away from France's usual influence sphere. Were the Dutchs, North Germans and Central Italians supposed to fully become French citizens? What were their opinion on "their" country and emperor?

It seems like everyone else who had challenged the Catholic church before him had.

Furthermore were these practises effective or was there generally enough material left to make most attempts futile

Do we have any statements from people involved or just ideas on the motivation behind specific attempts to delete records?

keeping the 20 year rule in mind insight into other attempts to destroy classified material by goverments nearing collapse is also very welcome

Hello all! I am looking to expand my knowledge of the formative period of the Soviet state. My knowledge of Soviet and Russian history is centered largely on the military and political spectrum and my specific intention is to broaden my horizons by gaining a better understanding of the structural organization of the state and its organs as they evolved 1917-1941. I also have a specific interest in the evolution of Soviet economic organization and planning as well as social policy and the engineering of the new Soviet society. I know it's a broad query and I greatly appreciate your submissions!

Context for my question:

In present-day America, inner-city grade schools are a challenging environment—for both the students and the teachers. The issues that plague these schools include:

• Students displaying rank disrespect for teachers. E.g., swearing at teachers, openly mocking teachers, ignoring teachers

• Students engaging in violent or inappropriate behavior (so much so that these schools have full-time security personnel). E.g., fistfights, knife fights, gang-related violence, theft, sexual acts

• Students' lack of participation in learning. E.g., absenteeism, failing to complete homework, failing to complete in-class assignments

The point is that the above list are not occasional occurrences at the present-day American inner city school, but daily and regular realities. They represent the "norm."

How similar were the American inner city school environments of the 1950s?

What challenges were most significant back then?

Is it accurate when senior citizens lament that inner-city schools were more wholesome and productive environments "back in the day"?

I know this is a very nuanced and probably uninformed question, but today we have this idea in our head that the border between Turkey and Europe is essentially the demarcation line between the "East" and the "West". I was wondering if de facto this has always been the case since the Trojan War(or maybe the Greco Persian Wars). Anyways, to bullet point my questions:

• I believe it is agreed that the Trojan War was between the Greeks and Anatolians. Was there a sense of "our world vs yours" larger than other culture clashes(such as the Greeks vs Egyptians).

• The Greco-Persian wars seem to be the foundation of the line for the concept of "the West" or Europe. Did the Greeks have any idea of the political and social significance in the borders that they had established?

• Alexander the Great was reported to have thrown his spear in to the beach the second he landed in Asia and claimed it all by right by conquest. Was there an idea of "Europe vs Asia" at this time?

• Did the Romans have any concept of an "East vs West" ideas that we have today? I believe they were the first to name it "Asia", correct? Was there any concept of continents, or a dividing line between Asia and Europe?

• I guess what I am trying to say is that did the Romans view the Mesopotamia region as a larger culture gap than say between the Gauls/Germanic tribes and Romans? For example did the Romans think they had more in common with the Gauls than they did with people in the Levant or Parthian empire?

• The Siege of Constantinople seems to be one of the largest turning points in history, was it understood during this time that Constantinople was such a crucial bridge between two worlds so to speak?

• I'm not sure on how to pose this question without it sounding racist, but in Ancient times was there a concept that "White people live on this side " and "Brown and darker skin people live on this side" of the Aegean? Or was racial mixing a lot more predominant between Asia and Europe in history and it was never seen through the lens of race or culture?

I don't really know how to articulate my questions, but it has always seemed that the Aegean and the borders of Anatolia and modern day Bulgaria(I think it was Macedon or the Dacians in ancient times?) separate two massively different cultures and continents. Has this concept always been there in ancient history?

Do you need a job in the field? A degree? Or do you just need a passion for history?

I've read that Poland as well as Finland were in Personal Union with the Tsar and that treaties with the other Powers were to make sure that Poland was not incorporated into the Empire. However most maps seem to show Poland as a mere Province of some sort.

.

Specifically, I'd like to know if there are any laws still on the books that can be traced back to some aspect of the Revolution. I'm sure that most examples are going to be from France, but I would like to know if it had any impact on British Common Law as well.

I recently heard what I considered was an absurd statement: "People only drank wine in biblical times because water was dirty." And I am seriously questioning the validity. Personally, it sounds like the perfect "explanation" as to why consuming alcohol was okay then, but in some religions, isn't okay now. Is there any truth to this belief?