My parents & extended family were all born and raised in Pittsburgh, PA. I was born there, but spent the majority of my life growing up in Cleveland, OH. The historical similarities and current differences between these cities have always fascinated me.

From my understanding, Cleveland and Pittsburgh were two rust-belt powerhouses. Both had flourishing steel industries and were successful cities because of it. When the steel industry crashed, Pittsburgh successfully transitioned into new industries while Cleveland stagnated and suffered.

This is my understanding, and while it is vague I'm not even sure it is entirely correct. I know that Cleveland used to be a very pleasant and successful town. What exactly caused its decline? What could it have done differently? Pittsburgh seems to be doing so well having been dealt the same deck as Cleveland. What did they do that Cleveland didn't?

Any kind of information on this would help. I am looking broad concepts like government policy, immigration, & economics as well as specific events that were good or bad. Are there any good books or websites I could read about this topic?

Looking for stuff on US history or WWII to watch while I'm doing Photoshop for work. Netflix, YouTube, prime? I didn't want books since my time at the computer is filled with silence and I would like to learn while I work. (I will say I read Devil in the White City and it got me really interested in going back to learn more)

A thought just occurred to me: how would a soldier (lets just pick British 1815 Waterloo, but I'm interested in other time periods as well) fighting in an infantry line react to a serious malfunction of some sort in his weapon that would prevent it from being fired? Say his powder doesn't ignite properly or a spring in the lock mechanism broke?

How would he signal to his chain of command that his weapon had been rendered useless and that he had not just stopped shooting out of fear or something like that which would be punished? And how would he do so without disrupting the formation?

c.1100-1500 English armies had divisions such as "serjeant", "men-at-arms" and so on. Would the same terms be applied to Scottish armies; or was the military terminology of Scottish armies purely in Gaelic? Alternatively; are there any non-Gaelic counterparts for the warrior bands known as called "Ceitherns"?

I tend to think of anything going on since WWI as more of a current event than an historic occurrence, but this is something I've pondered for a while now. During the time in which communist China was not recognised, what was it seen as? A renegade state of Taiwan? A separate entity? And why was such a comparatively small island seen as true China rather than the landmass with, at the time, close to a billion people?

I have been listening to The History of Rome podcast and I've just gotten to the end of Marcus Aurelius's reign.

I have yet to listen to the fall of the empire, but up to this point I have constantly been asking myself this question.

The Romans were so averse to having a king, so much that they made the Republican system dual 1-year consulships, and even the emperors up until 180 A.D. called themselves Princeps (first citizen) instead of King.

So after Augustus died, and Tiberius proved himself to be cruel and paranoid, why didn't the Senate try to return to the old ways instead of consistently allowing there to be an Emperor? I know in some cases, a man was lauded by the military and the Senate couldn't do much about it. But even when they had the chance, the Senate always seems to be quick to fill the void of power, regardless of the consequences.

Were the Senators so afraid and lazy to challenge the system and return? Or were things just too good with the Empire that they just decided to keep rolling the dice on the Imperator?

[deleted]

I've read a good deal about the ERE/Byzantines over the years, and one thing I noticed is that they almost always ended up paying tribute in exchange for peace - even when they apparently won a war.

Specifically, I'm surprised at how often they ended up paying the Persians, even though the two empires seemed to be more or less equally matched before 602. But of course, it wasn't limited to the Persians - they also payed off the Avars, Pechenegs, huns, you name it.

Again, it doesn't seem like it mattered much if they won the war, and tribute never flowed in the other direction - at least, not that I've ever noticed in my readings.

What gives?

Hi

I find this particular region fascinating, as the history of the people and conquerors in the region seems to involve everyone: Greeks, Sakas, Yuezhi, Indians, Parthians...

I'm only a novice in historical research, but it seems like the empires that formed were comparatively short-lived. Why was this so? As a follow up question, why were there eventually so many minor Greek kings in the region?

Even more specifically were there any battles that showed the old methods of warfare needed to be drastically and immediately changed?

It seems strange that the Ottomans ruled the Balkan region - and the area which is now Romania and Bulgaria - for hundreds of years, yet only a few small pockets adopted and converted to the religion of the Ottomans.

Abdülhamid II, for instance, had thirteen wives. How was this seen as acceptable in Islamic society?

Thapar's A History of India part I is highly recommended but what about part II written by another author?

I remember reading a historical discussion about the Hellenistic period not long ago, and the author said something in passing about how it was no longer fashionable or appropriate to use the word syncretism in order to describe a blending of cultures. I can't remember where I read this though, and I'm trying to figure out if I'm remembering it correctly and if this is true. Has anyone ever heard of this within the context of discussing antiquity?

I'm talking really early Christians. Like within the first few decades after Jesus' death.

In my school, we were taught that in Shakespeare's time, actors were looked down upon because their profession was considered shady. Today, actors are adored and praised. When did this transformation occur?