[deleted]

I found info about Vikings and Celts, but no Slavs. Is there any evidence regarding this topic?

Wasn't Arsaces from the Dahae and then the Parni, if so why is the empire considered a Persian army?

So I grew up in the Netherlands, obviously after the extensive defence networks were established. Now, I am wondering hoe often did disaterous flooding like the one in 1953 happen? How did the Dutch react to this? What was the reaction of the common folk? You get the idea I think. I am just interested in how this affected both the common folk and the policies, how often it happend. Stuff like that.

[deleted]

If my understanding is correct, back in the 1770s & 1780s, Americans were using "freedom" as something explicitly distinct from their status -- or anyone's status -- as subjects of the British crown. And that status was, at least nominally, much the same as that of present-day British citizens.

However, fast forward to the 20th century, and we see, for example, Winston Churchill, in his 1938 "The Lights are Going Out" speech, framing opposition to Hitler as a fight for freedom. Thus, what he called "freedom" was what the Americans, a century and a half earlier, were rejecting in favor of what they called "freedom".

Something changed in that century and a half. When? And why? (And what other relevant, interesting tidbits of info might there be?)

I'm trying to find out what the counties of the Kingdom of Hungary were from thr 15th century until they were changed in the 19th century, but I'm having some trouble. Wikipedia lists some, but then the articles for some of those counties says the county was only established in the 19th century e.g. Szeben county. I also can't find any map of the counties in this period, only from later years.

So my question is is there a proper list and/or map of the 15th century Hungarian counties?

My current history course portrays George Villiers as a royal favourite who made it to a high social status by being good-looking and being good at dancing - and it argues that Villiers, through his incompetence and favoritism, was in fact the main cause of the English Civil War.

However, if we take a look at his decisions, a lot of them actually look decently thought-out plans, even in hindsight. Not particularly successful, true - but some of them were quite logical.

For instance, the Spanish Match is often lambasted as a hopeless venture and a waste of money - but given the desperation of the Palatinate at the time, a successful English alliance with the Spanish could theoretically have saved the Palatinate without any use of troops. Given that the English Army and the English Navy were not in particularly pristine condition, the odds of a successful expedition against the Holy Roman Empire wasn't high anyway. In this context, the Spanish Match actually looks like one of England's last and best hopes to keep Frederick as the Elector of the Palatinate.

True, it didn't pay off - but it was a pretty risky gamble that England was forced into. George Villiers didn't really make a bad choice - it was pretty much the only choice he had left, it was a pretty logical (if risky) choice, and it just happened to not pay off.

Villier's reputation for diplomatic incompetence continues from the fact that he lent Cardinal Richelieu ships with which the French used to suppress the Huguenots. At the time, however, it seemed like a good choice, given the limited information that Buckingham had. Richelieu promised to help England with its efforts in the Palatinate, and with the French marriage firmly secured, it looked to be the beginning of an Anglo-French alliance against the Habsburgs. Although lending him a few ships might give France an easier time suppressing its Protestants, the Protestants were unlikely to have succeeded in their rebellion anyway - doing so would only speed up their demise, and in the process England would secure a crucial ally in their war against the Habsburgs. The fact that Buckingham was outmaneuvered by Richelieu says little about Buckingham's incompetence, but a lot more about Richelieu's skill in political maneuvering.

One of the other things that Villiers is accused of, aside from diplomatic incompetence, would be military incompetence - he cost England a series of losses against the French, the Spanish, and a failed land expedition into the Palatinate. But if we look at the reality of those plans, a lot of the plans were actually quite decent, and were foiled by either a lack of funding, poor luck, or a poorly trained and unprepared troops.

The Cadiz expedition, for instance, was foiled by bad weather - a storm had delayed the English fleet from successfully capturing the Spanish treasure galleons as originally planned. The storm also whittled down the supplies of the English fleet, which were already low to begin with due to lack of monetary support from Parliament. When Buckingham landed, his ill-trained troops were already in a mutinous mood and he had very little control over them when they decided to raid the Spanish storehouses - nor could he have possibly anticipated that they would opt to get black-out drunk right before an engagement with the Spanish. It shows incredibly poor judgement and discipline from his troops, and a lack of support from Parliament, as well as ill luck from the storm - but it doesn't necessarily imply that Buckingham was incompetent.

The same holds true for a lot of the military failures that Buckingham was accused of - and the more I read about his exploits, the more logical they seemed at the time, and the more uncertain I become as to whether Buckingham was grossly incompetent or if he just had really good opponents and really terrible luck.

So... is there something I'm missing about why he was considered incompetent, or does my history course simply choose a lot of sources that were biased against Buckingham?

Thank you for any answers.

I would at least like to know what sort of ships they were using. Google images only brings back pictures from videogames and slutty pirate costumes.

[deleted]

I'm debating with a friend who says the Romans used heavy armor just like their heavy infantry legions but I doubt it.

The first thing is that I doubt there would be a need for such heavy armor on a ship and it would be hard to move around or function in such armor.

Another thought is that all of the heavy equipment worn by hundreds of men on a single ship would cause the ship to move much slower than if they were lightly armored.

Also, men would be doomed if they fell overboard while wearing heavy armor even if they knew how to swim.

What exactly caused the rift between India and the United States that would pair them up with an on-again, off-again dictatorship as opposed to a quasi-functioning democratic republic?

I'm aware India has had socialistic tendencies in the past, but they don't seem to be on the same level as the former Soviet Union. Hell, India had a war with China, which was done I believe sometime before Nixon visit (I could be wrong, though).

Does Pakistan just hold some sort of strategic or economic advantage that I'm not aware of? Does this somehow tie to Anglo-American relations and India's status as a former colony? Am I asking too many questions?

I received this book yesterday as a late Christmas present. I've read half the first chapter and love it. My question is (and I hope I'm in the right subreddit for this...), is it historically accurate or is this just a textbook reviewer who's gone off his rocker and written a huge rant?

Historians and history buffs, the haberdashery shown in the movie The Hateful Eight was in some ways the star of the movie. Almost the entire movie unfolds inside this one room house. It was a combination of a general store and place to spend the night (although, there was only one bed apparently) and a place get a hot meal and stable your horse. It was located beside a trail in the middle of nowhere; just a spot to rest on your way to the closest town, Red Rock.

How accurate was this for the time period? This was sometime around 10 years after the civil war.

There were many interesting features of the room if you look closely, but one notable thing was the gaps in the walls where the wind and snow would slip though, although that seems like something done mostly for dramatic effect.

For those who don't know, Niall Ferguson is a contraversial British historian and occasional TV personality who is a Professor at Harvard and a senior research fellow at Oxford.

Now, in Britain, he is generally feted in right-wing circles and blasted in left-wing circles. The Conservative party considered involving him in writing history textbooks for schools, though as far as I know this never happened.

A while ago, I read his book "Empire: How Britain made the modern world," as my mother recommended it to me. I basically considered it an interesting pop history, but ultimately an apologist work for imperialism.

So, I would like to know what other historians of the British Empire think of this book, and of his work generally. As I said, he's a very politically contraversial figure, but I don't know he's generally viewed by historians.