I'm really confused about this topic, if anyone could simplify the specifics, I'd greatly appreciate it.

I'm a Finn, and in Finland we are of course taught about the history of Sweden and Finland, but it's very much from the Finnish perspective, focusing what happened in Finland, how Sweden was from time to time in war with Russia in modern Finnish territories and so on until losing Finland to Russia in 1809.

Less so did I learn on what was the standing of Finland and Finns within the Swedish realm compared to other regions of Sweden and other subjects of the crown. Turku/Åbo for example is the oldest city in Finland and quite close to Stockholm, and for most of Finnish history Turku was the largest city in Finland. What role did it have in the Swedish realm?

Extreme right-wingers and nationalist here in Finland love to try to portray that Finland and Finns were oppressed and Finland was exploited for the good of Swedes. AFAIK that's blatantly wrong, and rather Finland and Finns were in a rather similar position as any other part of Sweden at that time. But I have no detailed knowledge of that time.

You always see them in Germany and Poland. Why not Western Europe?

Which living person or family can believably trace their genealogy back the farthest? I understand that the further you go back, the more likely it is that a biological line ends, but so long as socially accepted family relationships are present, it counts (ie: a father having a son that is not biologically related to him by blood)

Since the device is controlled by manually turning a knob, would it be possible to determine a more precise date when the device fell into the ocean from the last setting the user inputted?

I know that the Nazis were trying to kill as many Soviets as possible and that they committed rapes as well. On top of that, the fighting was brutal and Soviet propaganda encouraged revenge, but did the women serving in the Red Army feel bad for the German woman? On a human level?

I know that Britain and other European states feared the spread of the French Revolution, but I also know that Britain had fought in various wars for over 100 years to try to contain France and prevent them from dominating Europe (particularly the channel ports of the Low Countries). So how did these motivations balance out in the Napoleanic Wars? Did they shift as France moved from more to less revolutionary systems of government?

1. What was the size, in terms of both men and ships, of a "typical" Viking raiding fleet? A trading fleet? An exploratory fleet?

2. For a raiding fleet, what would be the approximate ratio of raiding ships to auxiliary/supply ships?

3. How much scouting would a Viking raiding fleet perform on an intended target? What form would it take?

4. Were Viking traders also capable warriors? If not, would they have brought warriors along for protection? How many?

5. Under "typical" conditions, how long would a Viking raiding ship/fleet be able to stay at sea before landing for resupply? A trading ship/fleet? An exploring ship/fleet? (I'll leave it to you to decide whether the question is better answered in terms of a single ship or a fleet.)

I'm not sure how much evidence for these sorts of questions there is out there. If it's scant for the Vikings in particular, I'll gladly take answers related to other cultures which might be comparable.

Thank you in advance for any answers.

Veblen described Conspicuous Consumption as particularly characteristic of the Nouveau Riche, the middle-class which emerged out of the Second Industrial Revolution. Not being able to claim the same dignity as those born into wealth, they engaged in Conspicuous Consumption to a degree higher than their aristocratic counterparts.

That being said, I'd assume it would be the same case for Homines Novi, but I don't have any evidence for that. So: could someone steer me toward some could sources, preferably primary? Secondary is fine but I'd really like to have some snazzy quotes by Titus Whateverus. I'm really struggling to find anything over here, and any help will be appreciated.

(Yes, this is for an essay, but don't worry I'm not wanting to plagiarize. I just can't find anything talking about the subject. I've found sources which discuss Conspicuous Consumption generally, how peafowl flocks began to be sold for high prices and how a flock of 100 easily brought 40,000 sesterces, how there were lavish banquets, how Lucullus lived in luxury... All that is useful, but not what I want particularly. Please help me.)

I am reading Jean Chardin's work on his travels to Persia, and he mentions that the king and vizier are excited that a prominent Armenian merchant converted to Islam, and began pressuring the Armenians in Esfahan to convert as well.

They argued that they should remain Christians, as this would allow them to continue to do business in the lands of the Christian princes of Europe, a trade by which Persia presumably benefited.

I was a bit surprised that 17th century Armenian merchants would have such strong connections to European markets.

So, in what geographic region did Armenian merchants operate?

I'm readings a book that spends some time on the rise of the Populist Party, and metal coinage policy, but omits something that I think I'm expected to know: that is --

Why did farmers, among others, prefer "free silver" over the gold standard? From the flip side, I've read that the gold standard facilitated international trade and therefore sophisticated financial actors: why? Did this necessarily inure to the detriment of other parts of society?

And generally: what were the class politics of bimetallism in 19th century America?

For that matter, when people talk about reviving the gold standard today, are they making a historic argument -- it worked then it'll work now -- and is there any truth in that? [To the extent that this question can be answered within the subreddit's rules.]

Thank you all!

I had this thought watching Django Unchained. Was there ever any romance or historical background of quickdraw artists in other parts of the world?

Napoleon seems to get very little bad press considering all the shit he started. I understand he wasn't as bad as people like Hitler, but he still caused thousands of deaths and tried to conquer Europe and yet he hasn't been dammed by historians. How come?

I have an upcoming debate in a history class, I'm saying that Germany wasn't "solely responsible for WW1" and my opponent is saying that they were. Can anyone here give me a good overview of the factors going into the start of WW1? Any books you can suggest would also be welcome. Thanks guys!

What were some critical strategic locations in cold was Europe? (i.e depots, military bases, defensible positions, airbases, etc.). I'm making a board game with conventional warfare Warsaw pact vs NATO so any information is helpful. Any books you can recommend would be great as well. Thanks for your time!