Professor Kenneth Baum had a series called "The Fall and Rise of China" in which he portrayed Cixi as a hardline reactionary. I stopped listening when he assigned to her that most classic of disruptable acts, the poisoning of close family members. It seemed too connected t tropes.

However, another professor I had the pleasure of working with gave a relatively similar opinion of Cixi, indicating that she was indeed opposed to many reforms on principle and political issue.

A brief perusal of the Wikipedia article on Cixi gives a somewhat more revisionist take.

I'm interested in hearing what the respected folks of AskHistorions have to say on Cixi and her motivations during the waning days of the Qing. If you do not have adequate information, I'm willing to accept sources that I can do further reading on (send me a PM.)

I'm writing some historical fiction involving US soldiers stationed there, and I need to do some research. Ideally, I'd like information on the daily lives of the soldiers, and their interactions with the locals. Thanks!

Hello! I've been reading up on WW1, due to the historical renaissance it's going through, and one point brought up consistently is that the war is a major reason decolonization happened. I know colonial possessions persisted after the war, so because of that I'm wondering whether the European model of colonization was actually sustainable, or whether decolonization was definitely going to happen at some point.

Thank you all!

Can you say it began with the Truman doctrine or did it already start with the participation in the world wars? Did the new interventionist policy provoke conflict with the soviet union or was it inevitable? Was the change in foreign policy an overall good thing? Did different US Presidents have completely different opinions about the subject?

Edit: I got to ask these questions because I'm going to give a presentation on US foreign policy (from a historical perspective) and I have trouble to find a point to start from so I hoped for getting an explenation of someone who is more familiar with this topic.

I saw frescos from Pompeii at an expo last week and I was stricken by their technique, particularly in terms of anatomy, lighting and perspective. For some reason I have an impression that European Early Middle Ages art has been nothing but a downgrade in comparison to Ancient (?) Roman art. Is it just a big misconception on my side or there was indeed some techniques and knowledge being lost throughout the ages?

One of my all-time favourite movies is Ridley Scott's Kingdom of Heaven. Yes, I know, it ain't historically accurate. Still loved it though.

Anyways, that film really has me energized. I wanna learn more about the Crusades.

First, I don't think this question has been asked many times; correct me if I'm wrong and sorry if it is.

Anyway, having grown up in the Netherlands I often had to study about the Dutch making deals and signing contracts with people living in Indonesia, roughly in the period of the early 17th century. I was curious how this worked exactly, how did they communicate without speaking each other's languages and without having translators? Same goes for, for example the Spanish or Portuguese in the Americas during the 16th century.

Also, who was involved in the doctrine of "peaceful armed neutrality", and how successful was it? In comparison to Swedens' neighbours Norway (who were firmly in the NATO camp) and Finland (who were derided in the west for following the Soviets too closely.)

Bonus points for anyone who can discuss the social history of the Strv 103.

There must be someone on this subreddit who could have knowledge of such a niche subject...

And a final question, how would one go about removing all hair prior to safety razors?

When did China learn about the Americas? How did this news affect Chinese understanding of the world? What impact, if any, did goods and trade from Europe and the Americas have on China in the early modern era?

Did it start in 60s England? If so why. And why not cricket, say.

Did Vikings not carry the same germs? What germs might have developed between them and columbus that had such a devastating effect on the American population?

Was shaving oneself with a straight razor a common practice, or left to the presumably more skilled barber? When did the safety razor come to be accepted and used by most men? Did the ability to shave one's beard safely without paying a barber lead to a more clean shaven look?

I get what auxiliary armies are, they are sent as a form of support from an ally. I can't distinguish between the second and third though. That is, to have private armies wouldn't you necessarily have to pay them? Aren't private armies more or less similar to mercenaries? How are they different?

It seems rather silly to claim the loss of the Grand Armeee simply was due to Ney,but it has been claimed severally.Also do you accept this sort of claim for ANY historic battle?

The specific example I stumbled upon were the Harlem Hellfighters in WWI (maybe you know about the whole drama Im talking about) and that the French were far more tolerant than Americans. Ive also found out that France has a significant African-American community.

Edit: I wanted to clarify that i wanted to know whether the French have been less racist to black people in particular, not in general

Was the Post accused of liberal bias or partisan reporting for reporting on the scandal?