I know war clubs and battle axes were used in war, but it doesn’t seem like these weapons were used by any kingdom, state, empire, etc. extensively if at all. I’m sure there’s a simple answer, but I would like to hear it from someone that knows a thing or two about ancient warfare.

I know that slaves were often used as collateral to secure loans, but how about simply to make payments? For example, if a slave owner had some hefty attorney fees, could he simply pay the lawyer by giving him a slave?

I guess the onus of my question is whether slaves could be deployed as financial assets to make payments, rather than using them as collateral beforehand to secure a loan/pay a debt

I know it is a huge topic and a giant not specific questio but that's exactly why I'm seeking help

I want to learn about it but don't know how/where to start

Specifically interested in China - e.g., the War of Resistance (Second Sino-Japanese War) and then the Chinese Civil War so roughly 1937-1949. A relative of mine who fought in both wars recently passed away… I’d love to better understand the history as my American education is really lacking in this area. Simply to feel connected to my loved one who used to tell war time stories but I was too young to truly appreciate. Thank you.

There was French, Spanish and British territories in North American during period of fighting against tribes and the history of the USA mentions killing a lot of tribes but in South America, even though there was fights, there was a lot more integration in general.

Was it because British/early USA immigrants came with their families while Spaniards came men alone?

Was it the Aztec and Inca empires where too big and more united than northern tribes?

Edit: Intermingled? Mixed? Intermarried? Not sure why others thought integration meant “welcome natives and taught them how to be civilized” or some Disney like story.

It’s fairly obvious that racially there was more integration between races in SA. The question is why the difference between north and south.

Edit 2: yes, South America= Latin America in this question as North America was split between French and Spanish territories early on.

Given that the west/east had no qualms about recognizing 2 German governments (East and West), and 2 Korean governments (South and North), what was the thinking/philosophy of recognizing only 1 Chinese government? Couldn’t they have just recognized both the Nationalists and the Maoists either once the Nationalists fled to Formosa/Taiwan, or in the early 70s when they switched over to the communists couldn’t they have just also added the communists instead of having them replace the nationalists?

I’d reckon she’d hate him for executing her mother and no doubt he contributed to her lifelong self-branding as a virgin, with Elizabeth having seen what a capricious man with power could do to his wife. But I wondered if we have any correspondence or other sources that may allude to her feelings about her father.

I'm trying to find a good biography of Sequoyah, and secondarily a good book about the Cherokee syllabary in general. Unfortunately, I can hardly find any recommendations - the only biographies of him that I've seen are targeted at an audience of kids.

What titles would you recommend on these topics?

Obviously Rome and Greece both had slaves and class systems, but I'm wondering if any philosophers of the time were bothered enough by the inequality to discuss it, be it in a socratic dialogue or some lost work of philosophy. I imagine Marcus Aurelius discussed the role of the Emporer in his writings, but is there anything beyond that?

I've read that a common cross cultural indication of slavery across the world is that, no matter the level of their other garb, they frequently were either explicitly or implicitly not allowed to wear foot wear for a variety of reasons but at the most symbolic as a symbol of bondage.

Did this hold true for Higher Cost, more Educated slaves like, for example, Roman Tutor slaves or Arabic Ministerial slaves? Or was it geared towards laborer slaves?

Or is this not actually A Thing at all and Wikipedia misled me?

The Romans and Greeks talk about the "Gauls" as if they are one people, living in a territory as widespread as France and the low countries, to northern Italy, and down into the Balkans. There were also the "Celtiberians"; living in modern Spain, and the "Galatians"; who had settled in central Anatolia. Were these far flung tribes ever united as part of a greater Gaelic confederation or empire?

During the wars with Rome, Vercingetorix was declared king, and united the tribes of Gaul and fielded several armies against the Romans. Was this kingship a tradition the Gauls had practiced before? With the political division of Caesar's time being abnormal? Or was this unity simy brought on by the necessity of the Roman invasion?

Besides various kinds of robberies, what other kind of crimes would criminals engage in to make a quick buck?

This seems to be a right wing meme that's been floating around on the internet. "The Indians were just as brutal. They conquered and massacred and enslaved each other all the time. What they did to each other was no different from what the Europeans did to them." The unsaid implication being: STFU, snowflake.

For starters, I suppose there was a difference of sheer scale. 'Quantity has a quality all its own', as the aphorism goes. Beyond that, I don't think this claim passes the smell test, but then I don't feel qualified to get into it.

I know that historians aren't supposed to pass normative judgment, but there is an explicit historic claim being made here.

Was discussing with a couple of friends and can't come to a conclusion, would like some help thanks!

They have been presented many opportunities from 19th century. Even Tibetans welcomed it. Are there any reason to decide against intervention?