I will shortly be writing my dissertation on the subject, and would like some debate on the matter. The main discussion I will be having is to whether there is a direct influence, or whether the American system simply became associated with the Roman Republic later.

He tries to explain why the west advanced and the "rest" didn't. He boils it down to 6 key points, 1.Competition (competing empires resulting in innovation) 2.science (the scientific revolution) 3.property (property rights in north and South America) 4.medicine (medical advancements) 5.consumption (capitalism) and 6.work. Personally it all derailed for me at the end when he starts saying that advancement depended on the Protestant work ethic, and as less religious Europe and America becomes the less powerful they will be. Any thoughts?

I found The Travels of Marco Polo drop dead interesting and would love to see a similar take of Europe or the middle east in the eyes of a explorer witnessing it for the first time.

Edit: also African explorers if there are any!

I understand that it has to do with the English having lower transaction costs but how did it work specifically?

New to this subreddit and fascinated with my findings so far!!!

From the dawn of civilisation to the Qing dynasty China has held a majority of the world's population; what stopped the Chinese people from expanding westward or committing itself to becoming a global empire like many European ones? Or more, why has it long (seemingly) approached a way of isolationism?

The inverted cross come from a tradition that told us Simon Peter was crucified upside down. It is believed that Peter requested this form of crucifixion as he felt he was unworthy to be crucified in the same manner that Jesus died. So we could actually see some churches having an inverted cross instead of the regular Latin cross.

But in popular media today we see the inverted cross as a symbol of satan, anti-Christianity, etc as featured in movies like The Omen and Annabelle. How did this happen?

Hello, I am on a writing project (fiction) and I have two questions:

1. Is it plausible that a Swiss young woman traveled by train and boat from Lausanne to Oxford in May 1939 for leisure? Would it be easy to pass the border?
2. Is it plausible that a botanist and his research team traveled from London to Singapore by plane In July 1939, just right before the war? Thank you very much. Agathe

Why does it increase after World War 1? How did it become this huge movement that affected art, literature, science? Did the war increase disillusionment, and that's why it became so huge? Wouldn't that also contrast with the patriotism and jingoism felt in different nations? Sorry if I am wrong or naive, I find history a bit difficult to understand and I would really like to learn.

How did the Japanese's attack on Pearl Harbor lead to the U.S getting involved in WWII?

It's all over products and advertisements in the US, and has been for as long as I can remember. When and why did we start calling dogs Fido?

There seems to be a lot of history about the types of swords used and their development throughout history, but not really the extent of their use. And most modern sword use is largely for sport or ceremonial. Do we just romanticize swords because they're "really cool" and single combat with swords is so cinematic, or was there a time when everyone was literally carrying a sword of some sort on their hip?

I really wanna know more about my country's history, sadly the curriculum offers limited topics or is it just there are no sources?

I'm hoping this could stay for the discussion on infantry combat doctrine only.

Specifically, what were the main organization changes? And why were they changed and what was the reason? Did any of the changes led to new infantry weapon design requirements, or even personal equipment. (How much ammo carried, grenade carried, or other tools)

Most importantly, how fast did each country adopted those changes? And were they effective?

I have students in my drama class devising a piece of drama based around apartheid. They have decided to have a white couple who adopted a black child, then the child gets taken from them.

I don't think they've researched this all that much, and while it is a drama class, history is important in shaping their piece.