Were there calls to release prisoners that committed crimes against the former regime?

It really seems like he would have all the resources and manpower needed to crank out ships, so how did the British maintain naval supremacy?

And how did Diogenes know what the topic would be that he brought a plucked chicken? Was the definition of Man a common topic at the Academy?

Hello! Long-time lurker here. In the Fall of 2022 I will be entering into grad school on my way to becoming a history professor. That being said, I would like to ask this sub for book recommendations. Specifically, what books would you say are: essential in understanding and implementing historical methodology (of a singular kind or multiple); and, what history books (throughout all time) do you consider to be the seminal works in the field that have had great influence on the study and evolution of history as a subject and pursuit; and, what extramural fields/studies have you incorporated with history that give you a greater appreciation for both subjects and help you to expand on history in general?

For those who take the time to respond, I thank you in advance, sincerely!

(Feel free to respond to all three questions or one or two of them)

And there something distinctive about Korean culture that made it more receptive to the endeavors of Christian missionaries?

If it is true, why?

Recently I was watching a favorite documentaries series that I occasionally will watch on YouTube called town team. A show where a group of archaeologists majoring in various fields go to specific places usually in Britain seeing as it is a British show and spend three days conducting a small scale archaeological dig. Most of the time things like Iron Age, British Roman and things around that nature. The other day I watched an episode centering on the Anglo-Saxons. Now I’m a bit of an amateur historian myself but my knowledge is more around the American Civil War.

And one thing that I’ve always been curious about is why is it referred to as the dark ages in the time directly following the fall of the Roman empire and lasting essentially until the Italian Renaissance? (I could have my dates mixed up and if so I apologize. Like I said my Knowledge is largely in the American Civil War.)

I had to read Plato's The Republic for my college course on Political Science and an interesting part on where he's discussing the idea of tales that storytellers tell, he explicitly calls the Greek myths lies.

Is him blatantly referring to them as deception a common thing back then? Were normal Greeks as flippant with their religion as Plato is or is he a special case?

We always hear about the British, French, Dutch, and US as the main European players trading and doing diplomacy with the Qing dynasty, but clearly they were not the only ones. What interests me is, how did the Danish and Swedish manage to achieve the same level of influence, as illustrated by their most-favoured-nation status, as great powers like Britain?

I'm vaguely aware of Danish and Swedish attempts at establishing colonies in Asia, but I was under the impression that they were really only ever close to successful in India. So what did the Danish and/or Swedish-Norwegian presences in south-eastern and eastern Asia look like?

Edit: As /u/EnclavedMicrostate has kindly pointed out below, I was mistaken about Denmark's most-favoured-nation status, which in fact was not granted until after the Arrow War in 1863. However, as both he and /u/Fijure96 explore, the Danish nonetheless had a deep and complex history of trade with China, and you can't edit titles anyways, so oh well.

Edit 2: For those of you who are curious about the meaning of "most-favoured-nation" status, and how multiple nations can attain it, I'll give a sort of abstract explanation here. A most-favoured nation isn't promised specific rights — instead, it's promised that any rights granted to any other foreign nations will also be granted to it.

To give an example, when nation A grants "most-favoured-nation" status to nation B, it doesn't actually mean that nation B receives an exact set of privileges enumerated on paper. Instead, it's a conditional thing: if any other nation C that is involved diplomatically or commercially with nation A gets a privilege, nation B gets that privilege as well. So let's say a Russian ship turns up one day and asks to be allowed to sail up the Yongding River to moor and trade in Beijing. If the Qing were to grant this, they would also have to grant the privilege to all of their "most-favoured" nations, including Britain, France, the US, Denmark, and Sweden-Norway.

If it helps, I think of it not as "the most favoured nation" — rather, most-favoured nations are most favoured in the same way that Bill and Ted consider things "most excellent," if you ever watched those movies. There can be multiple most excellent things, or most favoured nations, and they're all united by being the highest degree of excellent, or favoured.

Hi :) So I am doing a little deep dive into vikings mentality, history etc for a historical rpg I am writing.
For the exact context I am thinking abour early viking age, from Lindesfarne up to the arrival of the Great Hathen Army.
While doing this, one thing struck me. Vikings obviously did loose a battle sometimes (not that rarely) and had to retreat their forces from it, to regroup and rething approach.
This does however collide with the notion of drengr- courage and manlines that is underlying their whole mentality.
How can someone in charge order the retreat and not be seen as a coward? How a warrior run away from battle and not be seen as a coward? To me, it looks like a serious stain on their honour, but surely they were not dumb or totally reckless and surely did not always fight til the last man standing.

To have entire societies based on this one alloy during that age must have meant it was mined in large quantities. However how could this be considering the lack of major copper and tin deposits in most parts of the world?

Hello r/AskHistorians, I badly need help. I'm doing my senior thesis and decided on a memory study of a certain event; the 1921 West Virginia Battle of Blair Mountain. To be clear my thesis isn't about the details of the battle of itself but, rather, how the battle has been remembered or forgotten by the American people.

To that end I've been seeking out US History textbooks published from 1971 onwards. My goal is to see how much they covered the event or if they mention it at all. The issue? I can't find them. I've been to my university library and have spent hours googling, but I've hit a brick wall.

Does an internet friendly database of old (US History) Textbooks exist? Are there specific US history textbooks that anyone knows were very popular in the education system? Any help or tips would be deeply appreciated.

Seeing the military coups unfold in Myanmar and Sudan on the news has got me wondering. Were there ever times in history where a military coup turned out to be a good thing for the people of that nation? For example, a military coup that resulted in the ejection of a corrupt leadership and then within a relatively short time frame, power was handed back to the people in the form of a legitimate democracy?

I was taught in school that the Pacific theatre was essentially a separate war (fighting with Japan both started before the invasion of Europe and ended after Nazi defeat, the US was more or less the only Allied power in the theatre, etc.), that no unconditional surrender from Japan was on the table so fighting would continue, and the path to victory, according to people like General Douglas MacArthur, was a land invasion. I was also taught that this line of thinking was a major justification for using nuclear weapons - the loss that would occur from a land invasion was calculated to outweigh the loss from dropping nukes. Is this incorrect? Was there any other proposals for ending the War with Japan under the circumstances? Was it truly a binary choice: invasion or nukes? I would also like to note I understand the other intended consequences of dropping the nukes besides ending the war such as intimidating the Soviet Union.

I’ve been getting into the American Revolutionary War and trying to read as many primary sources as I can. But they often conflict each other.

Example: The Battle of Lexington >> Different accounts have even the basic details very different. How many regulars? How many minutemen? Who shot first? How many died?

I suspect that the differences stem from people wanting to make their side look like the good guys (and probably from people’s memory being fairly terrible.)

I was reminded recently of a school trip years ago to look at some uncovered Roman-era mosaics (Lullingstone in the UK, I think).

I remember the guide/museum person telling us that the Romans viewed perfection as a trait of the gods, and in deference would make minor intentional errors in their work.

The guide had us poke around to find them (and there were a couple) - tiny errors in geometric patterns, that kind of thing.

Is this true (the intentionality)? Or did they just make mistakes (and maybe the guide was trying to make us take a closer look).

The Mycenaean palaces (destroyed in the late Bronze Age collapse) are quite famous, but whatever happened to the Spartan Bronze Age palace complex? Sparta was central to the Trojan War, whatever form it may have taken historically, so it presumably had the same shared culture & forms. The other Mycenaean palaces were literally enormous fortresses leaving substantial remains. A quick google search brings up a few articles about possible sites but no real answers. Is there a theory as to why Spartas palace was so different, or hard to find, or simply so elusive?