Context: I study at a University in my country known for having many Leftist Militants in a Third World Country. I have a class which is about "Local Pop Culture Analysis"

One of the reports for the class was about Mao's Cultural Revolution (which for me is weird because first, the Cultural Revolution not even found in our Pop Culture).

Per your average students, they reported about the commonly known facts about Cultural Revolution. Which is when the Mao's Great Leap Forward failed, which he canned after realizing how disastrous it is. After that, he wrote the Little Red Book, which became a required reading for almost all Chinese citizens (they even said that there were punishments for those who can't recite lines from it). Then, the Red Guards form up, which rampaged the country, purged many intellectuals and the enemies of Mao in the Communist Party, and destroyed many things associated with the traditional Chinese culture, which resulted with the destruction of . When the Red Guards grew out of control, Mao called the PLA to restore order and the Red Guards were banished to re education camps.

Then after their report, our Professor asked them where they got it. The reporters said that from Wikipedia and some general history textbooks and websites. The professor then said that the aim of the Cultural Revolution was to remove the traditional and capitalist ideas that was holding China back. Then our Professor goes on a rant on how all the sources the reporters based their report from was biased being all negative about the Cultural Revolution and dismissed it as Capitalist propaganda that was meant to slander Mao and his communist regime. And the professor gave us the advice to instead of just consulting general historical textbooks, or just basing on the first hits on Google about the Cultural Revolution, we should try to find sources that is not entirely negative about it. I was about to say that the same things apply to Adolf Hitler but I didn't want to get on the professor bad side. And nobody even reacted perhaps because of the same thing.

With all my prior knowledge about this topic challenged, my Question is: Are the sources about Cultural Revolution really badly biased? How do historians approach these conflicting sources? Is my professor are just engaged on the groupthink along with colleagues denying the destructiveness of the Cultural Revolution for their agenda (which seems very pro Mao)?

Be it a merchant or warship?

My history briefly mentioned that Artillery had a huge impact on the tactics and ways the military functioned on the battlefield, like stopping the use of Calvary charges but went no further in detail.

Did artillery really change warfare so quickly from 1914-1918?

So I was in an ask reddit thread about what bad advice you disagree with and I threw this one up. To my surprise I got a ton a replies that were just all over the place about where this quote comes from, the actual quote it came from and the intent behind the quote.

Everyone seemed to have a vastly different opinion on the history of this quote. So it got me curious. Does anyone know where this quote really came from originally?

For instance, after having taken a capital city, how would the postal or taxation services of the conquered kingdom be brought under control?

I am specifically interested in classical antiquity, but I'm sure there are other good examples outside the time period (The Norman and Mongol invasions come to mind).

Absent government in socializing the cost of capturing slaves, suppressing revolt, maintaining patrols and hunting escapees. Who would pay those costs? Were those costs be more or less than paying someone for the labor directly?

It may just be a load of crap, but my understanding is that the accent was all relatively American until around the revolution. Some time after that the royalty decided to switch up their accent to something a bit more aristocratic. Can someone either confirm this odd story or explain the real reason there's such a difference?

Are there any early historical examples of people running purely for the enjoyment of running?

What about ancient examples of running for exercise outside of military or hunting training?

Edit: Not counting competitions either, if at all possible. Just running to run or running for health.

My main curiosity is how he would have spent his days and in what conditions. From what I was taught in high school was everything leading to his exile but that was it. I wondered what freedoms he would of had and what he'd have done on a daily basis.

I am currently reading the excellent Remembering Pinochet's Chile: on the eve of London 1998 by Steve Stern. The book treats at some times the relative disparity of repression conduct between the regions of Chile after Pinochet's coup. Chile being a very vast country, with complex geography, I was kind of "impressed" by the homogeneity of the coercion in the whole country.

My question is, are there past cases when the newly formed government (following a revolution or a coup, or any kind of overthrow) was willing to let loose of part of the territory, knowing they could not effectively rule this fragment of periphery, to focus on consolidating the urban power, the presence in the capital (or another big city)

I'm studying American government right now, and this question came to mind. The American colonies seemed very prosperous compared to other places, and they didn't appear to have it that bad either, yet they believed that their "inalienable rights" were being violated by the king. The people in Britain didn't rebel like the colonists did. So what was it about the people, the Founding Fathers in particular, that made them believe differently about government and the rights of individuals? Was it the people who settled there, such as the Puritans or Quakers? Or something completely different?

If I were living in a period of imminent nuclear war, I would consider moving outside of dense urban centers. Was this sentiment common at the time?

Or did the Mensheviks rejoin the Bolsheviks after the Revolution in 1917? Or is the answer a combination of both?

One of the most famous units of the ancient world were the macedonian pikes, which the romans met and defeat in their conquest of the Eastern Mediterranean.

My question is, did the Romans ever deployed armies that used the pike phalanx formation? I reckon emperor Caracalla equiped some of eastern legions with pike as he was a great admirer of Alexander the Great, so this make me believe the formation was not unknown to the Romans, but I don't know if they ever fought like that. And if they would be effective.

It doesn't need to be the legions, maybe auxiliaries troops? Or the units of the Late and then only Eastern Empire? Do we know anything about that?

Gratitude.

To be specific, Im referencing how the British armies were unprepared for the Native American inspired, grab your nearest farmer and head for the trees, style of fighting.

I was under the impression that the Czech army was reasonably powerful and could stand up to Nazi Germany at that time. Why wasn't there any government resistance to Hitler's annexation of the entire country?