We've been studying it in class, h/e due to a shitty teacher it's been hard to really understand how the Qing dynasty/Manchu's actually modernised China. Any help much appreciated!

[deleted]

We've all seen the caricature of the 'violent native' wearing no shoes, shirt, pants, sandals, or any vestment other than conveniently placed cloth covering breasts and genitals.

The societies depicted in these garments are usually presumed to be from central and south america, carribean, africa, the pacific islands, and sometimes some european islands.

It seems extremely impractical not to wear something like a shoe or sandal even in hot climates, and I would be astounded if people living in forests and jungles, where you can easily get an infection or walk over something poisonous, if you're going about it barefoot.

For another if a society really does feel good nude most of the year why bother covering their junk? It seems convenient for television and film but it doesn't make much logical sense.

Is it a seasonal thing? Do they put on more garments for work like hunting or war?

If this is even true which societies wore this loincloth uniform? Did any at all?

I'm looking for books about, or have good sections on the economy of the British Empire.

In particular I want to know what banking and monetary policy was like in the British Empire at different stages.

Did colonies coin or print their own currency or did they all use money printed by/on the order of the Bank of England? What about when colonies achieved Dominion status?

What were the major economic activities of different parts of the empire?

Also, was the Great Britain/the United Kingdom (depending on the period) ever afraid that one of their colonies would overpower the mother country economically or politically?

Any suggestions are greatly appreciated.

Did they always think of themselves as Americans? Obviously the Americas refers to a larger mass of land than just the US, so I'm curious as to when this shift in thinking happened and "America" became synonymous with the US.

I've been watching some documentaries lately on the Eastern front in WW1 and WW2 and it seems that by the levels of casualties suffered by the Russians in those wars that there would be some long lasting effects on their population levels.

Did they experience a post-war baby boom like the US did? Were there any real incentives to have more babies in the Soviet system?

during the Queen Anne's War, were there still any settlements? Did the Royal Navy still dock their ships there? Was there any other activity there? Thank you if you are able to provide good answers.

Wikipedia says baptism has a precursor in tvilah and general ritual washing, but differs in that baptism is only administered once.

Was John the Baptist the first person to perform this kind of baptism? Was he responsible for the invention of the baptism as a singular, transformative event? What purpose did it serve in his messianic movement?

Can anyone provide source materials for ALL THAT IS KNOWN about Alexander the Great as of today?

I read a quote attributed to Pope Innocent III that says, that the relationships between the emperor and the pope are like the relationships between the sun and the moon, one gives shine to the other. If said quote is true, then when did it became known that sun gives shine to the moon?

I haven't contributed much to this subreddit because I'm way out of my depth. I compulsively read the threads though.

The latest episode of Hardcore History has gotten me interested in the Persians. I didn't want to ask a redundant question, so I checked the FAQ and I couldn't find much of anything there. I also searched the subreddit for Cyrus, and, although there are a few posts, the subject matter does seem to be lacking here.

Anyway, based on my extremely limited knowledge, Cyrus, who founded the Persian empire, was only a few generations older than Alexander the Great, who effectively ended it. Is this truly the case?

I've been reading about the Church of Scientology, and how it's classified by a lot of people as a "new religious movement". This is the same tag that was given to the Branch Davidian Church based out of Waco, and even the Mormon church. My question is when do we stop considering these new religious movements "new", and start examining them as actual religions? The LDS church obviously fell into this category, but now it's seen as a bona fide religion in America. So where's the line and how do we know when it's been crossed?

[deleted]

I've never quite been able to find the answer to this, usually search results come up with something about the old units of measurement and the like, so I'm turning to the pros.

During Medieval times, how exactly were units organized and how large were units? Was there some kind of standard organization of 'this many troops form this size of group' like how modern militaries have determined, or was it more of an on-the-spot, whatever is most useful kind of thing? The only exposure I have to any notion of the organization or numbers of troops for a unit is from a strategy game I play, which while being a lot more accurate than the average game or movie in its depiction of warfare, is not something I want to use as a reliable source. In case it is or just to have something to reference what I'm asking about, generally units are grouped into one type of role (eg, pikemen, spearmen, heavy infantry/dismounted knights, cavalry), and form, for lack of a more accurate term, regiments of troops that are fairly organized and usually distinctly hold square or rectangle formations several men deep and as much as ten to twenty men wide. Infantry is usually grouped as 75-150 men, Cavalry is grouped at 40-70, and General units (the general and a protecting cavalry unit) at 20-40 troops.

I know its better to narrow down the scope of the question, so for the sake of it, let's assume we're referring to the general era where professional and standing armies began to be more commonplace as opposed to conscripts and levies. Additionally, if the question is a bit vague or confusing, I can definitely try to explain it better, this has been burning the back of my brain for awhile now.

Frankly it boggles my mind that such hugely complex and intricate machines could be designed and built before CAD was available!
I've toured the interiors of the USS Missouri, and in London the HMS Belfast and they seem hideously complex: pipes, ducts and wires running all over the place! How long did it take to design a warship? How did the designers ensure that everything would be connected? What happened for example, if during construction they found that "pipe A" was obstructing "pipe B"? How could they make sure that all the parts fitted together during construction?

Thanks!

Follow-up: did any of Nasser's aspirations for the region play out as he hoped?