[deleted]

I'd like to know how free people living under British rule were to move from one part of the Empire to another. What sort of regulations, if any, were in place? Would people living in different parts of the Empire have different legal restrictions on their right to move elsewhere? Would for example an Englishman have the right to move to India, while Indians did not have a corresponding right to move to England?

I'm primarily interested in legal restrictions aiming to prevent free movement, not the subjective ability to do so (lack of money etc.). I'm sure these things changed over time, but I'm mostly curious about the era around, say, 1815-1914. Any illumination you would be able to provide me would be most appreciated.

Thank you in advance.

I've recently picked up reading books again and to me came the thought that in, let's say 1500 years, a book I write now could be considered an actual representation of our time. Despite it being totally fiction. To back my book up I could have a degree, and no mentions of it being fictional at all. How could scolars then tell if I was an actual historian documenting our time or just an author having fun. How can we tell that ancient texts aren't just made up stories with a very realistic setting?

For example, does bread now taste vastly different to bread in the past? If so, can we replicate the techniques used in the past and get the same result?

What about meat? Has the industrialisation of the meat industry changed how meat tastes?

I would guess that this would be a pretty difficult question to ask because there's really no way of documenting taste in any precise manner. But I thought it was worth a shot asking.

PIE in the sense of the culture, language and religion.

It is tempting to think that the oldest known monumental stone architecture, located in one of the hypothesized regions of the origina of PIE, is somehow linked to the oldest known language we can speak of.

The length of time between Göbekli Tepi and PIE is vast, yet is there any creedance or theories linking the existance of one to the existance of the other?

I have the misfortune of working with some people who are very well informed about political issues but who hate the US (and Europe, and white people) for ideological reasons, and they tend to organize their perception of facts around their ideology. I've heard them claim many times that the US's wealth is derived mostly from slavery, and as a social science teacher I know enough about history and economics to know that this, without going into my own ideas about the subject, doesn't make a huge amount of sense and to me appears as a egregious distortion of reality. But then there are people with far more expertise in this subject than myself.

Part of the argument was that labor is the highest expense for operating a business.

Has there been some authoritative conclusion about this open question? Has it been decided true, or is this one of those ideological misrememberings of history that has been put to rest?

This is a loose question, because I want to give the flairs plenty of latitude to answer. Basically, I want to know your informed opinion on Mark Moyar, his arguments, where he fits into the debate, and how credible his assertions are.

Not trying to generalise here, but coming from one of these countries, I've realised there is significant west hate, especially against the US. Their most popular argument is the US's support of Israel. Did this hate originate from the creation of Israel or was it stemmed deeper, probably post Crusades?

Falling into the trap that is wikipedia and clicking on all sorts of links, I have arrived on the Winter War page and I am sort of confused. What did the Soviets want?

Was it outright and complete conquest and integration of Finland into the Union like with the Baltic states?

Was it "just" the concessions of land and the like they supposedly originally wanted, with the Soviets actually managing to get a bit more than that after the Winter War?

Or perhaps something in between and no one, not even the Soviet leadership, knew completely for sure?

I'm not going to pretend I'm well-versed in this subject, I'm not. I was watching a show recently (can't remember the name) that is about Danish invasions of England some time around 877 AD or something. I've heard a lot in the past the usual jokes about vikings stealing up all the good looking women from England, etc - but I've always wondered...

Why did they do all the work to sail to England to do all their looting, pillaging, and possibly conquering? Why not just go to Germany or other nearby countries?

Also, if they are able to survive in their current territories now, why weren't they able to before? Could current day Swedes/Danes/Dutch not survive if not for modern conveniences?

I'm curious about the timer period in which Mongolia rose, and how they were able to do so. Any book recommendation? Sorry if this isn't the right subreddit for this.

Ghengis Kahn and the Making of the MOdern WOrld seems interesting, but I've been seeing a lot of criticism due to inaccuracies. Are the inaccuracies so bad that it's not worth reading?

What did British involvement consist of if they were?

With how strongly British media criticized it, it sounds like future efforts would attempt to distinguish between insurgent and civilian better, to avoid harsh moral and ethical criticism. Did a change of tactics occur, and if so was it effective in reducing such criticism?

Also, were the German counter-insurgency efforts in line with existing counter-insurgency practices, or was Germany especially out of order?

I can find detailed accounts on the plight of slaves throughout the Americas, but how did europeans treat their (african) slaves?

How well informed would the colonials have been of the events? Was there any significant Jacobite sentiment in the colonies?

Everyone seems to debate endlessly what caused the fall of Rome, but in the end all great empires fall for one reason or another. What about Rome made it different from all the other small cities around the Mediterranean? What lead to its dominance? In particular, I'm interested in how it went from city state to controlling Italy, and later how it managed to hold on to a massive chunk of Europe for so long.

I am reading David Chandler's "History of Cambodia" and he mentions how Cambodia and Vietnam "lived on two different sides of a cultural divide, perhaps on of the most sharply defined of those in effect in nineteenth century Southeast Asia". Now I don't know a lot about Laos but it seems it really isnt part of the same sinicized world as vietnam is, even though both are right next to China. Why is that?

Are there any good books on Muslim culture and society?? And any good books or reasons as to the large divide between Muslims and Christians?? Or put differently the middle east vs the western world?? Any references would be nice thank you

The sacking of Baghdad by the Mongols in 1258 is seen as the end of the "golden age" of Islam but the Abbasid Caliphate had been slowly declining.

How and why were the Mongols instrumental in ending of this period?

Or was the Mongol invasion inconsequential to the end of the success of Islamic States in the region?