I understand this is a dangerous question to ask on reddit but I am asking purely in terms of economics and industrialization rather than humanism or any moral standard

I've heard historians make a convincing case that Chamberlain is wrongly maligned. The British military wasn't ready for war and that Chamberlain's goal was simply to buy time for mobilization. Just curious. Thanks!

EDIT: Thank you, everyone, for the replies!

Also looking for a book about the Batak people in Sumatra. Thanks for all future recommendations! I myself am Indonesian but moved abroad before I was taught our history, so I'm trying to catch up on our history.

First time posting, so I hope I managed to live up to the guidelines.

In Hollywood movies you often see the armies exchanging two or three volleys before charging. I realize that these type of films should never be watched for historical accuraccy, but I wonder if there would be any reason for an army with superior firepower to retain some of its arrows before engaging in close combat?

Was it the stories of his wealth that attracted colonialists or was it something else? Especially since West Africa was arguably one of the richest regions in the world, is he the reason that it's so poor now, or is it to do with something else?

"in the 1570s and 1580s, Elizabeth's troops crushed the Irish uprising with terrible ferocity, inflicting unspeakable atrocities upon the native Irish people."

What is this referring to, and what were these unspeakable atrocities?

Hey r/AskHistorians!

I hope I have framed my question correctly. I am very interested in the history of immigration integration, but I have to admit I do not know much about it.

From what I know with regards to immigration integration, most immigrants either retain their "old ethnicity", e.g. Afro-Germans, Italian-Americans, etc. or assimilate themselves into the major society, dropping the official mention of their ethnicity.

Therefore, I find it rather interesting how white South Africans managed to create their own ethnic group (Afrikaners), instead of calling themselves "European-Africans" or "Dutch-Africans". I understand that power dynamics might be involved in this - perhaps as a sign of unity/nationalism against the white English speakers?

If I am right, I wonder if there are any other similar examples to this. Something similar that I could think of is the Pied-Noir of French Algeria. Again, I do not have an extensive knowledge in this, so I look forward to the discussion.

Thank you in advance!

I know David Irving isn't the best name to bring up... Practically the worst, however while I haven't read it he did write a book on the Hungarian revolution, one that my grandfather fought in.

Now, my grandfather never really liked to talk about life under occupation, much less the revolution... But he did talk at length about politics.

My grandfather was, as some might call, a patriot. He wasn't a 64 Counties type person who wanted to see the Kingdom of Hungary rebuilt... But he wasn't a liberal. He hated the Communists with a passion, claiming that 80% of the members were Jewish and that they were the ones who sent the innocent to die in Siberia.

So... Here's where things get muddy. I'd like to preface by saying in no way am I a historian with extensive knowledge, merely providing my hypothesis based on second hand sources.

My grandfather wasn't wrong, from what I've gathered. Hungarian Jews fled to the Soviet Union as soon as labor battalions started getting formed early on in the war. They rode out the war as best they could in Russia. Upon returning, some may have led the advance back into Budapest in 1945.

Now, if you're a returning Communist Jewish or otherwise... Who do you trust in this new Hungary? You're living in a land which was once heavily fascist. Why not trust the people who came back from Soviet Union?

These people get jobs in government as everything from secretaries to mailmen to criminal case managers... To people sending Hungarians away to Siberia for former ties to the fascist regime. My great grandfather was a mailman and got 6 years.

Propaganda also plays a part in this, as after the revolution that is what people were told; that it was of a fascistic, anti-Semitic nature. The lynching of AVH members, the Dudas militia... It's a very strange thing to ponder.

My personal opinion is that no, by no means was it anti-semetic. It was not intended to be, all that was intended was to break the chains of a regime that did nothing but rob and steal, broke up families and spread ideology through intimidation not unlike those they rallied against.

Sorry if this is too controversial :/

I've heard a lot about the "Jahiliyyah" from Muslims, specifically school teachers and those attempting to convert. They speak of female infanticide, women treated like animals, senseless violence, superstition ruling over knowledge, etc. I'm wondering if there is any historical evidence to back this up. Thanks!

I'm a little confused. A quick Google search of the Moors and I'm looking at a bunch of very dark skinned looking dudes, and most representations I've seen of Othello show him as black, and I saw some "historian" on YouTube talking about how the Moors were "traitors to the black race," whatever this guy meant.

I was always under the impression that the Moors were a North African people? Like Berbers and Middle Eastern looking folk.

So basically curious about the ethnic makeup of the Moors and why they are so often portrayed as black...racism in medieval Europe that has left a lasting impact on history, or what?

What comes closest to what people view as the stereotypical knight that is commonly thought of? Is there any specific unit in the early 10th-14th centuries that resemble the knight? What country did they come from? What was their armor and weaponry like?

( All of this excluding units like the Knight's Templar)

I remember once looking through an educational book my grandparents gave my father in the mid 1960s. For some reason the artist decided to cover the moon with stalactites and stalagmites despite the (even then known) lack of liquid water needed to produce such structures

On reddit, Machiavelli when or drawn upon, it is often mentioned with it that The Prince was actually satire.

• Was the prince satire?
• Was it percieved at the time as satire?
• If not then why were it til modernity (I assume) it was taken to be interpreted as satire?

I know some of the heretic sects of ancient Christianism. Some of them didn't believe that God created the Universe, and some others didn't believe in the Trinity. I was wondering if a branch of Christianity that didn't believe that Jesus Christ was the real son of God ever existed.

So buffets are a pretty common staple of restaurants all across America. Whether it be chains like Golden Corral or Ryan's, or more local offerings. When did this style of restaurant become popular in American history? Where did the trend of these 'all you can eat' style places start?

As a follow up, who started the trend of the stereotypical Asian Buffet? The ones with huge capacity with a wide variety of food beyond just 'Asian' food. The interior decorated with lots of shiny fake gold and other 'fancy' looking ornamentations. Often some sort of massive chandelier hanging over the middle of it all. Is it just due to some sort of fascination with the 'exotic' and the 'Eastern' that still hangs around today despite our interconnected world? Is there some reason all of these places are practically the same wherever you go around the country?

Surely there is more to the history of the American buffet than just gluttony.

[deleted]