Reading Robinson Crusoe and came to this paragraph:

...That this would justify the Conduct of the Spaniards in all their Barbarities practis'd in America, where they destroy'd Millions of these People, who however they were Idolaters and Barbarians, and had several bloody and barbarous Rites in their Customs, such as sacrificing human Bodies to their Idols, were yet, as to the Spaniards, very innocent People; and that the rooting them out of the Country, is spoken of with utmost Abhorrence and Detestation, by even the Spaniards themselves, at this Time; and by all other Christian Nations of Europe, as a meer Butchery, a bloody and unnatural Piece of Cruelty, unjustifiable either to God or Man; and such, as for which the very Name of a Spaniard is reckon'd to be frightful and terrible to all People of Humanity, or of Christian Compassion...^1

I was a little surprised by this, as the narrative I had accepted was that Europe was basically okay with or ignorant of the wrongs it was perpetrating against the peoples it came across during the pre-Colonial and Colonial phase of its development.

Can anyone extrapolate on the variegated views of Europe with regards "savages"? If it was popular to think of other races as inferior, were there still dissenting views of this, early in the Colonial period? Was progressiveness (with regards human rights and equality) more wide spread than we currently think?

I'd like to hear anything that complicates or gives greater detail about this period.

^1 Defoe, Robinson Crusoe, Norton Critical Edition, 2nd Edition, page 124-125

Recently i read in Wikipedia that the Western Roman Empire lasted 285–476 and the Eastern Roman Empire lasted c. 330 – 1204 1261 – 1453. So i am wondering some things: First why i didn't knew about it before. How an empire that lasted half a millennium is more famous and people know about it more things than the empire that last one and a half millennium? Why although the Eastern Empire Citizens was called Romans as citizens of the Roman Empire, today they are known as Byzantines, from the small village that was there with the name Byzantion, before Konstantinos the Emperor deside to change the capital city of the empire to that place and name it Konstantinoupolis?

We know about it's failings, what about some of the good things it did?

In video games such as Europa Universalis and Crusader Kings, you need a casus belli to start a war. Often, to get a casus belli, you need to forge a claim on another kingdom's province. It this something that actually happened in history, rulers forging claims?

I am currently reading the book "KL Auschwitz, as seen by the SS". The book is a collection of the memoirs of three officers who served at the camp. The footnotes describes the different gassings, and explains who where gassed, and how many from each gender that where instead taken to the camp itself from that specific transport. The trend that I am seeing is that there are usually more women than men. I would automaticly think that men are generaly stronger, probably better suited for hard physical work, and therefore more valuable to the SS.

P. 166 "68 On that day 617 Jews were rought toKL Auschwitz. 37 men and 119 women were admitted to the camp as prisoners, the rest were killed in gas chambers."

This is only one example from a recurring pattern so far in the book. Is it just a coinsidence or is there a good explanation to it?

Im interested in the Inca empire, Aztec empire, Mayan Empire, Mongol empire e.c.t... are there any books you would recommend that focus on these empires and more?

Currently on a "Fado" music kick...

Enjoying in particular fadonista Cristina Branco when it occurred to me to wonder.....

Given that Spain had a fairly warlike history.... How did Portugal manage to survive as a enclave isolated from the rest of Europe?

There are a couple from the Greek classical period I know about, but I doubt they are the absolute earliest.

The ones I'm thinking of are (1) the story of the lawsuit between Corax and Tisias, with the judge's judgment being "Bad egg from a bad crow," which was a pun on both of their names (Corax = crow, and if I remember it right, Tisias means eggs) and (2) the "is that a scroll in your pocket or are you happy to see me" moment in Plato's Phaedrus, in a dialogue between Socrates and Phaedrus.

Source for the first one is George Kennedy's A New History of Classical Rhetoric, source for the second one is this passage in Plato's Phaedrus:

PHAEDRUS: I will do as I say; but believe me, Socrates, I did not learn the very words—O no; nevertheless I have a general notion of what he said, and will give you a summary of the points in which the lover differed from the non-lover. Let me begin at the beginning.

SOCRATES: Yes, my sweet one; but you must first of all show what you have in your left hand under your cloak, for that roll, as I suspect, is the actual discourse. Now, much as I love you, I would not have you suppose that I am going to have your memory exercised at my expense, if you have Lysias himself here."

I just watched a video of a gun barrel being forged on /r/artisanvideos and it got me thinking, how were the millions of guns needed for armies all over Europe manufactured on that scale. Was it simply a case of thousand of gunsmiths turning out individual muskets one at a time or did they have industrial processes to help?

Strange title, but it comes to this:

During the time, the USA was involved in WWII, Americans seemed to me much more united. Young men were eager to join the army, there was a war-based economy; everything was focused to contribute to the war. During the war in Vietnam this wasn't the case.

But in the late 30's, 1940 and 1941, there was also a large anti-war movement in the USA. If I recall corectely, Henry Ford and Carles Lindbergh were part of the America First movement, which didn't want American interference in Europe. Also there were right-winged organisations who were at least not negative against (certain) fascist ideas.

In the 50's and 60's (large part of) America was (fanatically) anti-communist (McCarthy, Red Scare, etc.)

So how come despite this, people were much more opposed to the war in Vietnam? Was it a difference in generation (soldiers in WWII grew up during the Great Depression, Vietnam-era soldiers grew up during the booming 50's and 60's), was it because the war in Vietnam was televised? Or was it simply more black vs white? In WWII, the USA was attacked by the Axis, while in Vietnam the USA striked first?

Just to expand, I was think of the period from the 1800s onwards.

My Indian friend said he was an Aryan and according to the Aryan invasion theory this is most likely true, but would an Indian from Northern India (Like my friend) be considered an Aryan in the Nazi definition of the word?

By late fall of 1914, the flanks of the Allied and German armies were anchored along the Channel. Despite Germany's "fleet in waiting," the British were able to supply Allied forces via cross-channel shipping. Why, after the stalemate- especially, perhaps, after years of stalemate- did the Allies fail to attempt a large-scale amphibious invasion aimed behind German lines?

I recognize Gallipoli is a factor here. After the failure of that amphibious effort, garnering support for another one- both in Allied high commands and among the Allied public- would certainly be difficult. But would it have been more difficult than persuading the English and French to endure another Somme?

Was technology the issue? The development of the Higgins boat is considered by some historians to be an essential part of the D-Day operation, and certainly the Allies didn't have those in 1915. But neither had the Germans underwent construction of an Atlantic Wall in 1915.

This question has always nagged at me - can anyone answer it?