From all the reading I've done on foot-binding in China it seems as though it was done on young girls, presumably because their bodies could tolerate it better.

Do we know if it was ever attempted with adult women whose bones were fully developed, and what the outcomes were if so?

Can someone explain in simple words the difference between mandates, protectorates, dominions and colonies in the context of the 20th Century?

This is a long standing trope among some Confederate sympathizers and other people who are trying to be as fair as possible. How much of it is actually true?

Key word being ''battle'' axes as I know someone will use vikings as an example which is not quite the case you see aside from the fact that their most common weapon was a spear most of the axe heads archeologists found were wood cutting ones altough indeed they developed lighter, dedicated battle axes later on it was far from some desired warrior weapon (that was a sword). Were there any people or military units who prefered axes over swords? What advantages does an axe have over mace and sword?

Was it widespread knowledge? How much detail of what happened in the camps reached the occupied territory? Who knew and who didn't?

I'm asking because some people supported the German invasion. So I want to know if they knew about the holocaust or any other wrongdoings from the Germans (besides occupying another country).

Thanks.

[deleted]

I have been told many times anecdotally and in history coursework that battles from the ancient era and especially in Napoleonic wars were "scheduled", in that commanders would meet prior to engagement to determine the location and date (and even time!) for their armies to form up for battle. They would shake hands, depart, and keep their word until they met at the predetermined time and place for battle. I know this couldn't always be the case, but was it common for scenarios like this to occur prior to modern battle tactics?

I was reading a book about the world history from the 17th to the second decade of the 20th century, and there was something about how people in the British Empire, including those who in the 13 colonies in North America, loved tea so much that numerous smugglers actually had a hand in smuggling cheaper tea from China to the 13 colonies, and their love for tea also triggered the establishment of Boston Tea Party and the Independence of the colonies. I never did realize how much they loved tea, though. Did founding fathers like Jefferson, Washington, or Franklin mention their love for tea in their diaries? That being said, I never really see this old thirst for tea seem to have left any traces in modern U.S. much somehow... Must have something to do with the War of Independence, right?

I have to do an asssignment for school about this, and so I wondered what Russian teens are being taught about Stalin, and also how the government under Putin looks at the Stalin era. Even better if anyone has got any good sources that describe anything related to this. Thanks in advance :)

I've been binge watching Sharpe recently and I started to think that the representation of military tactics of different nations seems similar if not identical. The same in other historical fiction like Captain Alatriste and from what I remember of the Hornblower series, and even fantasy like Game of Thrones.

Now I appreciate that these are all fiction but still it got me wondering whether a) they're even remotely accurate b) if they are how did the 'rules' of war develop over time and c) did different forces have 'specialities' and different ways of approaching battles.

In my mind I'm imagining that maybe they evolved from a common root, the Romans maybe.

Could someone explain the differences between bastard Feudalism and the system that preceded it? This period of history is not my area of expertise but I have been reading up on the Wars of the Roses and feel that this question is vital to my understanding.

I have never been totally clear on why WWI continued, or what the "end goal"was. It was clear WHY it started, but why it continued or what the goals of the armies were is lost on me.

In WWII it was clear, Hitler wanted territory back he felt was stolen in WWI, plus a host of other motivations regarding Russia and Jewish people, but it was clear. Equally clear was the allies goal and win conditions, stop hitler, defeat Germany and her allies. Similarly straight forward motives and goals for Japan and the Pacific.

WWI however it's not clear. None of the leaders of the big players took the assassination of the arch duke that seriously, nor did they care about Serbia all that much (it was a hotbed of tension for years as the Ottoman Empire was on the verge of collapse due to total lack of interest in reforms by it's leaders) so it was not that surprising.

As they all got drawn in to the conflict due to alliances, even a quote from the Kaiser basically saying that if Queen Victoria was still alive this would never been allowed to happen (pretty much every Royal in Europe were cousins at the time) reinforcing that there was no real animosity between the nations.

So after the initial "romance"of war wore off, and the real business and horror of war was in full effect, why did it continue? What was the end goal? Why was it not just sort out Serbia and area and then deescalate? A war that no one wanted, no one cared much about that became the most widespread and violent event up to that point makes no sense to me.

I can think of only a couple of things:

• war (and maintenance of standing forces)
• constructing fortifications (I believe these were hugely expensive?)
• administration
• diplomacy
• exploration and colonization efforts
• the lavish lifestyle of royalty

What am I missing? And was this much different in Western Europe compared to Russia, the Islamic World, East Asia, etc.?

Considering India's enormous diversity, especially compared to China, and it's (relative) democracy, how did India avoid more partition after independence into smaller states?

Why did it not become like Europe, sharing a common culture, but still divided along ethnic and linguistic lines?

Was it close and if it was, what prevented it?

Thanks!