I have a general understanding of the settling of the islands of Japan, what the difference between the two are and basics like that. But Ive always had difficulty finding information on the relationship between the Japanese and Ainu between feadual Japan to WWII.

Like what were they up to during the feuding (*waring?) states period, Shouguns, Meji restoration etc..

and deciding whether or not gladiators should live or die

If I had ta guess I'd say common misspellings helped. Is that the case? Or does that generally not work?

I know that they were a pastoral steppe people, but do we know anything about their culture? How much did they influence the cultures of the places they invaded/migrated to?

There's been a seemingly large number posts with no substantial comics and a lot more 'illegal' posts, rude posts, or jokes. Has this subreddit become too big to sustain the level of standards we've grown accustomed too? Is it a user base too vocal scaring away genuine comments? Is it that the user base is too big and we now have more questions than we can answer, too many question that belong in an ask reddit or similar subreddit? I think there is a issue here that needs to be talked about that is hurting this subreddit

[deleted]

How did the Fall of Byzantine Empire affect what later became the Italian Renaissance? Was it essential to its rise?

From much reading about WWII I know that there were many instances of war crimes and atrocities committed by the Wehrmacht. But I haven't been able to find any sources on whether it was a very large proportion of Wehrmacht troops involved or if it was more isolated. I was under the impression that most of the Wehrmacht was conscripted, and so didn't assume they were all the same rabid, genocidal Nazis that the SS and the SA were. Am I wrong?

Hello all, I'm trying to do some research for a video series on the Venetian Republic, and I can't seem to find any good sources that talk specifically about what Venice was like in the 18th century. It seems that no one cares enough about the stretch between Lepanto and Venice's fall to Napoleon to pay it any mind.

All I can really get is vague descriptions of Venice as "a city of grandeur" and mentions of the widespread popularity of Carnevale, not mot much else.

With most of its maritime holdings lost to the Ottomans in war, and its sources of wealth being undercut by transatlantic trade and other new routes, the Venetian Republic was undoubtedly on the decline. I have a couple questions:

1. How then did Venice the city get the reputation for being such a cultural highlight of Europe in the century — how was it discovered? (Was Venice that grand and beautiful before and people only really recognized it later? Did Venice devote its remaining funds to the city itself upon realizing that their maritime power was at an end? Did the city's economy sustain itself because of tourism and grow from that?)
2. Are there any other cities equivalent to 18th century Venice (in any time period) with which to compare it? (My best guess is late 20th century Las Vegas, everything is fancy and people can simply let loose.)
3. Was life good for the Venetians? (It was probably a good time for the people visiting the city and admiring its beauty, but did everyday Venetians feel the same way? Or is it closer to today where Venice mostly exists solely as a tourist attraction?)

Anything helps. Thank so much!

No one got executed, and I couldn't find a sentence over 10 years. A bit disappointing, considering the infamy of those camps.

*Edit: It looks like a few were executed in the Mjandek trial, sorry!

I've been listening to Dan Carlin's Hardcore History about the First World War. It's amazing how little they teach Americans, i basically had no idea what was going on or why until now. The sheer amount of information in the podcast is a bit overwhelming at times, and one point i was never super clear on was the Schlieffen plan. Can some give me an ELI5 on that? I'm embarrassed to even give what my impression of it is because of how confused I am.

Beyond the symbolic factor, Moscow was a major economic hub that was crucial the Soviet war effort, but could they have fought on without it and still hope for victory?

I vaguely recall reading that around the time period of 1850-1900 archaeologist found and tried to hide evidence of ancient African civilizations. I can't recall where I read this claim and I doubt it's credibility.

With so much made of Europe's discovery of America, and additional discussion of whether there were pre-Columbian Atlantic crossings, I find myself asking why there wasn't more Asian crossing of the Bering Sea and Strait to explore, conquer, or trade. There were seafaring peoples in northern Asia. What was it about these cultures that made them less inclined to explore or expand? Or is it simply that they did and we don't hear about it or that they did but left little historical record?

I know that if I were to go back in time, even just a few hundred years, my ability to understand and be understood in English would be rough. What about in other languages? To be specific, I'm watching a show and a modern guy goes back to feudal Japan and speaks the language just fine. Is this realistic?

Gold and copper were used to various extents by new world cultures/civilizations, but what caused them not to continue into the bronze and iron ages, and stay, for all intents and purposes, in the stone age?

I'm not trying to be an apologist for the actions of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan from 1979-1989, because I know they caused a lot of problems. However, it seems disingenuous that most sources on the war seem to give blame to the total of all civilian casualties (around 1 million) on the Soviet Unions armed forces. I think that some of the deaths can be at least attributed to actions of some of the Mujahideen factions and other causes. It seems to be the equivalent to people who blame all violence and deaths of civilians in the Vietnam War on the American military, despite the massacres perpetrated by the NVA and VC forces.

The early guns were big, heavy, couldn't shoot very far, and took minutes of reloading between each shot. When you compare this to a bow and arrow, which was small, light, reload able in seconds, and could kill just as easily, I don't see why any empire would use guns over the bow and arrow.

Were there any encounters between armies using bows and arrows, and armies using guns? What benefits did guns provide that bows couldn't?

I have seen a couple of different sources but most seem to site between only 100 and 300 knights out of the estimated 5000+ who participated in the 1st crusade on the side of the Christians choosing to stay in the Holy Land. Why was this? Was it concerns over politics back at home, was the wealth/trade potential of the "Holy Lands" such that it could only sustain such a number, or was this some grand conspiracy to consolidate power for Baldwin the 1st?

In fairness, some if not many of the original estimated 5000 were killed, however exact numbers appear to be unavailable. Even if only 2500 remained, 12% choosing to stay seems very low. I would love some input from historical sources, especially those which are more obscure.

I know the San Francisco Bay was fortified against Confederate naval units, but did anything ever happen there - or for that matter, anywhere else along the California/Oregon/Washington coast?