Let's just say in the year 1820 to put a timeframe on the question.

After having learned about both American slavery and Russian serfdom this year, some details about the two institutions struck me as remarkably similar. What I am wondering is whether serfdom and slavery really were so similar, or whether the similarities are more superficial.

I have only been able to find a source that claims some American architect's wife was his daughter. But I am really looking for any solid info (marriage certificates, birth certificates, newspaper articles) relating to his family life. I have looked pretty darn hard but my lack of german (or swiss-german) language skills might be letting me down.

I always wondered about the way the roman military evolved. I understand the Marian reforms and the early enpire era but it always intrigued me the way the late empire looked.

Opting for the round shields just seems like a step backwards from the effective manipular formations that they had. Is it because these tactics are beconing obsolete? Or is it simply due to cut backs from the declining empire(s)? It really does seem like late empire legions were quite inferior to their earlier counterparts.

It was just "Et tu, Brute?" or a longer version "Et tu, Brute, contra me?"? Which one phrase is correct? I see in english world more popular are words "Et tu, Brute?" when in polish consciousness dominate words "Et tu, Brute, contra me?" Can anybody know where from are these differences and how it is in other countries?

What exactly were they, just a league of merchant guilds, or some other type of political entity? How did they operate amongst all of the Kingdoms and countries in the area while still having power? And how much power did they have?

So the obvious answer is that the British and Turkish presence on some of the Aegean Islands, Crete & Cyprus is because it was relatively recent. That being said the Greek presence is the oldest and is present, so why wouldnt the Venetians or Genoese presence be apparent?

An easy example is Cyprus, people from there identify with the British because of their long presence there and that many of the local population know English (British Cypriots). The same applies for the Turks as many Greeks converted to Islam though out the Ottoman empire to not be discriminated against and also immigrated to a lot of the current Greek islands. So why is there no Italian characteristics in the local population such as in Crete, Naxos, Paros etc.?

Or in other words what were the Italians doing on the islands that made it so that no Greeks on the islands past, present or future would ever identify with them?

By "familiar with" here, I mean, familiarity with the content, not knowledge of its existence.

If there are communism experts who want to focus on other regions, such as Vietnam, Cuba, Poland, or other communist areas during the Soviet era, that would be very welcome, too.

I had a history professor who was Greek and she would always refer to this city by its original name before the Ottoman Empire invaded and took the city. Are there still ethnic feuds over the land?

Hi, I'm trying to gain a bit of understanding in regards to one of FDR's New Deal policies. I'm aware of most of the New Deal policies and how they worked. But I'm struggling to understand a basic component of the Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA). This is partly due to my fairly limited understanding of economics.

Question: Why did the AAA want to keep agricultural prices high? I know that the AAA put restrictions on how much a farmer could produce, and I understand that the effect of that would be higher (more stable?) prices. But what I don't understand is WHY the federal government wanted to keep prices higher/more stable. Common sense makes me think that lower prices would be good for the people, allowing them to purchase more food, which is generally a good thing. But I'm positive I'm just not understanding the big picture. I would appreciate any help.

Also, what was happening in Germany at this time? He sailed aboard the SS Berlin and was originally from Germany - he was on a return visit to see some family.

I never met him, as he died before I was born, so I can't ask him to explain what it was like back then. However, I was wondering if the fine historians of this subreddit can give me an idea!

I'm going through the Pacific theater, and sometimes it feels like a game of Axis/Allies where the US just gets all the rolls. In every major battle, some combination of luck, strategy, and/or blunder seems to result in a US victory.

I want to specify that I'm asking about battles against the US, not against British/Chinese forces in mainland Asia (where Japan had considerable success). I'm also asking about battles after Japan's initial expansion (including Pearl Harbor and taking the Philippines). If there are any successes, feel free to compare them to Pearl Harbor/Philippines on whatever totally arbitrary scale of "success" you choose.

The Young Pretender didn't die until 1788, do we know his opinions on the matter? what about other prominent Jacobites? On one hand, an army with a large Scots contingent gave a black eye to the House of Hanover, but on the other hand, they turned their backs on monarchy- seems like a mixed bag from a Jacobite perspective.