If they actually did target them, how did the RAF protect them successfully? (i.e., since they're still standing today)

I know that Elizabeth II anonymously joined V-E Day celebrations, but most depictions of this act in movies are set in the Middle Ages.

I can maybe buy the argument that some foreign names are difficult to pronounce in English and therefore needed to be simplified but I'm driving through Italy right now and almost every town and city is slightly different. Milano to Milan. Genova to Genoa. Firenze to Florence. Yet Pisa is Pisa.

So why were these originally bastardised in English?

i was reading this book called borderless economics and it had this line: ‘Armed resistance barely scratched South Africa’s white-supremacist government, but the regime collapsed when white South Africans tired of being global pariahs’

i don't really know anything about it, but it seems like that discounts the boycott movement plus the struggles of the ANC?

it would be cool if someone could give me a history lesson

:)

Was it due to the fear of dragging the Soviet Union into the war due to early Cold War Tensions?

I know that so the called Indian Wars were fought for over 300 years but when did the conquest and genocide ended? In 19th century, 20th century?

I was reading Imprudent King, and in it Geoffrey Parker says Philip II attended Mass every day, but took communion four times a year. Was attending Mass without taking communion a thing?

Did the Russian Emperors keep the title of tsar in addition to their imperial title? Was the usage of "tsar" instead of "emperor" a slight, perceived or real, towards the Russian state in comparison to Western ones?

The 3 Jewish rebellions I know of (66-73, 115-117, 132-136 AD) seem to have been very militarily costly to the Romans which without knowing too much about them surprised me. How were rebellions these rebellions able to perform so well against the Roman army? better seemingly than many nation states.

Living in New England there are several areas where Rochambeau's troops camped during their march to Yorktown. I am given from most revolution texts that their presence was pivotal, but I' m interested in obsessive detail, perhaps even something from diaries or organizational records. Thank you in advance! Love dis sub....

Why does there appear to be no "Scottish" pantheon of pre-Christian deities? After the arrival of the Romans, the influences of Christianity become clear, but there doesn't seem to be any well-known known "Scottish gods", the way that there are Norse or Roman or Greek, or even Irish.

That is, were there any cities comparable to Rome in terms of utilities, development and luxuries before or during the time of the Roman Republic/Empire? Don't necessarily have to be Roman.

This question came to me when i was watching a documentary about ancient rome with reenactments. And there was a scene set in a communal toilet, after they had done their buisness, they simply stood up and left. And i figure that cant be right, can it?

Were they worshiping primarily one god, or exclusively that god?

It's likely that the word's meaning is different in academic circles than the common usage today. But still, it's an image hard to shake. To what extent were they fanatics? How large were the groups? Were they hostile or defensive to other sects?

Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Tito, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot etc. When did radical politicians/revolutionaries begin adopting pseudonyms and was it a 'left-wing' phenomena?

ALSO: If the cause was for safety why were they kept once power was achieved?

Good afternoon.

I read a fantastic book the other day called 'Factory Girls', and it made me realise that I have no idea how the Chinese civil war in the 20th century actually went down. I know that it wasn't communist, then it was, then some awful things happened, but that's it.

I want to fill this glaring hole in my knowledge. What would be good to read / watch / hear / etc?

Hello historians!

I just finished my first reading of the new academic year. I am taking a course called "Institutions in Time" in the economics department of my university. It focusses on how institutions change in time. As the time aspect of the course title implies, (economic) history is part of the focus.

Anyway, the point is, my first reading ended by the writer noting that "rigorous, analytical historical work" is needed within the field of economics, something that despite the rise of the idea that "history matters" has not happened and that a lot of history done by economics is pretty terrible. So far I'm on board.

However, for next tuesday we need to read parts of Ferguson's Empire, which I was extremely surprised to see. Especially after the first class focussing on the importance of good history. I am familiar with some of Ferguson's later popular work which I've found entertaining but not too convincing (and especially far from anything coming close to rigorous or academic), although I know that his early stuff of the Rothchild's and money is well regarded.

How sceptical should I go into reading Empire? Is is as much pop-history as "The West and the Rest", or is it held in higher regard? I am not as much asking whether the general thesis is controversial or not (I realise it is), but whether it can be viewed as "rigorous", "historical" etc.