How come Belgium was able to annex such a large area in Africa, that was also quite full of resources, without much challenge from other colonial empires e.g. France or the UK?

I have heard that it was a deliberate decision by the Soviet leadership, possibly to let the Germans wear themselves out fighting the Jews, but that sounds... far-fetched.

I've recently been listening to Dan Carlin's Hardcore History podcasts (can definitely recommend them, even if it is a bit biased at times) and what I really like about them is how he paints a picture of the Roman psyche for example. In both Punic Nightmares and Death Throes of the Republic, he manages to give life to the Roman culture in a way that you feel like you know how these people think. What their ambitions are, why they do what they do etc.

I'm looking for something similar for the events leading up to and the early days of the Holy Roman Empire (pre-1400). I don't just want to know what happened, I want to get a sense of what Germany and the German people were like back then, in terms of culture, society, economics etc. I don't care if it's moderately biased (such as Carlin's stuff), as long as it gives me a good feel of the era and its people. It can be books, podcasts,documentaries etc.

Any advice is much appreciated!

TL;DR looking for a history of the late dark ages/early medieval period of the Holy Roman Empire, preferably with a focus on the people and culture, in the style of Dan Carlin's Hardcore History

I cannot give many examples other than say game of thrones, but it seems like in many recreations/re-imaginings of medieval era pieces, many of the cups appear to be curved. Is this historically accurate? If so, is it a result of the process of making them or something else?

Europe doesn't really have anything comparable to alligators, so what did they think when they arrived at/began settling the south where gators were prevalent? In my mind they must have been absolutely terrifying.

I'm watching season 2 of Marco Polo, and while I know the show already takes tremendous liberties with the historical record, a big part of the show is people showing off one-on-one with martial arts, and absorbing the fighting styles of other nations and training people in it.

Is this based in historical fact at all or was individual martial arts skill pretty much irrelevant to larger political pressures and military might.

I was talking to a friend who had studied history in university and he suggested that no society that had no potential for social mobility lasts for any amount of time. I suggested that ancient China was very low on social mobility; that philosophical traditions like Taoism were about the society developing ways of coping with low social mobility by valuing one's place in a larger whole. He said that all you had to do was a test to move up the ranks of bureaucracy and that that was enough social mobility to prove his point. It seems like begging the question but I don't have enough knowledge on the subject to reasonably refute his point. Please let me know if I'm wrong.

Edit:

I was inspired to ask this because in Pinker's Better Angels of Our Nature there is a claim that most analyst see Hitler as indispensable for war in Europe. So he cites a Historian F. H. Hinsley who wrote: “Historians are, rightly, nearly unanimous that [...] the causes of the Second World War were the personality and the aims of Adolf Hitler.” He also cites Keegan as saying "Only one European really wanted war — Adolf Hitler." Is that really a consensus?

Hey all, I just stumbled across this subreddit and I feel like I found a treasure trove. Really excited to start getting involved, especially as a college student who's been discovering over the last few years a passion for history.

Anyway, here's my question - where’s the line between elitism and intellectualism? I find as I further my own history degree, it gets harder and harder not to feel as if a large majority is pretty damn stupid. That’s not to say I ain’t aware of my own ignorance, and stupidity, and I do recognize that people in general try their best to think intelligently, given what resources and circumstances they have at the time. But as the world slides slowly into crisis, and causes slide into parallel with that of with historical disasters, I feel, on an emotional level, a looming sense of dread, and hopelessness. Or am I steeped in my own bias? I’ve been struggling with this for a while, so much so that at times I find myself reconsidering my love for learning. Do you feel the same? Is there a way to end up positive, or is knowledge really a poisoned chalice?

Apologies in advance for such a long-winded question, I swear I'll get the hang of it over time!

I want to learn more of him so i want to now the positives and negatives.

At the battle of the Somme I was always told that the first line of British troops all walked slowly in a line over no man's land while being machine gunned down. Is there any truth to this or is it just a myth?

I imagine that at one time, the Greek pantheon wasn't consistently depicted. Most of the gods were probably the central figure in their own little religion. So, one region worships Zeus, another worships Poseidon, and still another worships Athena.

It makes sense that as people were gradually able to communicate with more distant communities, they started melding their religions.

Is this an accurate depiction of what happened?

When compared to other European nations the Italian Army seems to be one of the worst performing armies, is this down to propaganda or was the army just the worst managed of all the nations?

Sam Harris, in his book "Waking Up", talks about drug use in history, and briefly mentions the institutionalized use of hallucinogenic drugs like psylocybin mushrooms in Aztec and Mayan civilization.

More making the point that hallucinogen uses are not always peaceful, "we are all one" experiences, he says that it's undeniable that the disconnect from reality helped make the society more brutal.

Do historians agree with this number and with this conclusion?

I am generally curious as to what changed in the eastern front from February 1944 to June 1944. I am aware that the German army transferred large amounts of their armored corps to the West Following the D-Day landings shortly before Operation Bagration. But otherwise, what changed in the situation?

I was reading "The Crusades: an Authoritative History of the War For the Holy Land" when I came to a section that said how the mail armour of the Franks were so effective against arrows, that during Richard I's force march to Jaffa, many crusaders had tens of arrows sticking all over them and they walked on like nothing.

If arrows are already so useless against mail armour in the 12th century AD, why would English longbow men still be so destructive as much as 200 years after the aforementioned account of the Third Crusade?

After watching some fantasy movies and stuff like that i wondered if there were actual techniqs which involved using 2 swords at the same time