I would like to know whether the success of Franklin's policies can be mainly attributed to the War or to the legislation itself. Thanks for the help :)

I hope you're not rolling your eyes yet. I'm thinking about studying history, but since it's a crucial life decision I'm not sure yet. Mainly because I don't have a lot of information on what "studying history" even is and I doubt having an interest in history is enough. So here are my questions:

1. What do you learn in university? Do you study a specific era or topic?
2. Let's say I get a masters degree in history. What options do I have now?
3. How is the job security? Do you have to worry about getting a job or where your next paycheck is going to come from?
4. Do you enjoy what you're doing? What's good / bad?

I hope those questions aren't insulting to you. I bet you got a lot of shit for studying history aka. "What are you gonna do with THAT!?", but I'm genuinely interested.

I don't have accurate examples, but I want to have understanding of not just what things have happened when, but also gain insight into how events affected people and the impact they have caused today. For example, for philosophy i am listening to a podcast called philosophize this.

P.s. apologies if this is not an appropriate question for the subreddit.

[deleted]

At work we jokingly refer to ourselves as "Apache Warhorses", based on the legend that the Apaches would ride their horses to death and then eat the corpse. Is there any truth behind this lore or is it a racially charged reference? The only references I can find to it come from fiction novels.

How true is this statement ? He goes on to say the army under Tariqs' lines were too long and an assault across the Pyrenees was impossible. From A history of the Church in the Middle Ages by F. Donald Logan. I've always been taught the importance of Martels' "stand against Islam" from a western perspective and find myself fairly ignorant of the 700's AD. Thank you in advance for any responses.

Edit: Definitely meant in Japan which is where I'm assuming ramen restaurants were first before instant ramen

Or is it just a fun coincidence? In school, I was taught that the Shia Muslims cared about primogeniture and inheritance from the prophet, but the Sunni Muslims didn't think it mattered.

I've been reading Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Voltaire, along with other French Enlightenment philosophers, and I've generally seen a theme of tolerance. If not tolerance, then at least not complete radical blood-lusting executions. It seems to me as if somewhere along the road, these Enlightenment ideas were in a way corrupted. If I am wrong in this, please do correct me because it is important in the context of my other questions.

The killing of the King is understandable because he is a symbol of the old way of government. Even killing the highest, most elite of the government was understandable. But killing every last government associate and even priests seems like a very noticeable turn from the traditional Enlightenment philosophies of Jean-Jacques and Voltaire.

I am wondering, in light of the fact that such education and toleration promoting philosophers existed near the time and location, why the French Revolution & subsequent Reign of Terror turned out to be so violent compared to other revolutions around the time period?

Additionally, why the revolutionaries (particularly Robespierre) believed in their excessive violence?

I just realized I never heard anything about Asian sufferage.

I've only been able to find information on who were tributaries, the reason behind the system etc. But what did tributaries actually give? Was it a significant boon the Chinese economy?