How did the farmers react to the fall, when did they notice it and how did they notice it? Did some farmers choose to start a whole new life? What opportunities did this moment give these people? What happened to the slaves who were in use at that point by the Romans? At what point did the Feudal system became active? Does anyone have good books on this matter?

Thanks in advance!!

As an amateur historian I'm mostly self taught and concentrate on 1930s-1970s I've learnt a lot but one thing I missed out on from taking real classes is source content. What is the difference between primary and secondary sources? And why is one or the other good to use in a historical context? I'd like to reply here more often but I'm always afraid of not citing properly. I hope this is okay to post in this subreddit because it's in a historical context related directly to responding here.

News organizations frequently site the War In Afghanistan (2001 - present) as the longest war in US History. Is this correct? Or did the US involvement in the Texas-Indian War last for a longer period of time?

Thanks for taking the time to read/answer my question.

I've never quite understood how countries such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE managed to stabilize themselves after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, although I am aware that they got alot of money from their oil.

Also, if anyone has any good books on the subject please recommend.

I once heard a story about the Islamic expansions that claimed there was some sort of disagreement between the Island of Cyprus and the Eastern Roman Empire in the 600s and the Islamic armies pushed the Roman armies out of Cyprus but left the island both independent and under Christian rule. It sounds like some medieval polemic by Muslim sources and not a real event. Could someone explain the history of the island of Cyprus during the 600s and early 700S CE? Thank you

We know he spoke Greek, studied under Aristotle and carried the Greek language and arts across the world, but I'm not sure why it's generally considered that he was Greek. He was born in Macedonia; of a Macedonian royal family and Macedonians were considered Barbarians, or recently descended from Barbarians, right?

Some quotes:

Historian E. Borza: "It is clear that over a five-century span of writing in two languages representing a variety of historiographical and philosophical positions the ancient writers regarded the Greeks and Macedonians as two separate and distinct peoples…"

Historian NGL Hammond: "Macedonians considered themselves to be, and were treated by Alexander the Great as being, separate from the Greeks. They were proud to be so."

Greek Historian M.B. Sakellariou: "Isokrates [father of 'Hellenism'] places Macedonia outside the boundaries of Greece and describes the Macedonians as 'an unrelated race'…"

Historian E. Badian: "As regards the Macedonian nation as a whole, (there was as we can see) no division. They were regarded as clearly barbarian, despite the various myths."

Bertrand Russel in the "History of Western Philosphy" states that Alexander was "not quite a Greek".

So what do consider his ethnicity to be? And do we make a conscious decision about the difference between his nationality and ethnicity?

To quote from the book I am reading: "...it was not known until the mid-eighteenth century that trees and plants could be grown in places other than where they were native."

The Scents of Eden, Charles Corn, xviii of the prologue

This seems highly unlikely to me... is this just in reference to western Europeans?

I realize the practice was probably not that common, but I am curious as to how this insanely dangerous "game" made its way into the movies from/about the era.

I'm writing an essay for college about the Antebellum Era. My book I'm reading is called "The House Devided" by Louise Mayo 3rd Edition- as a reference.

The questions I'm going to use for the bases of my essay:

In what ways was America--in the antebellum era--a society of equality?

In what ways was it a society of inequality?

On the balance, do you believe it was a society of equality or inequality?

Why?

I'm having a hard time on the equality portion in terms of substance and "Meat" of the topic. In the Antebellum Era, at least according to the text, there wasn't much equality at all. In general it seems to be heavily dominated by the "White Male" and not much else. Even white women had a hard time progressing in this era.

Can anyone give me some more insight about the "Equality" that did actually occur?

I know it was a Portuguese colony, but why did the Philippines accept Christianity with such open arms? Why didnt some other Asian countries accept it the way the Philippines has?

What other previous colonial countries in Asia converted to Christianity in mass like the Philippines has?

We are so familiar with the image of the giant wild stallion raging against a farm hands as they attempt to "break him". Who were the first people to do this seemingly impossible task, why didn't they give up? I can understand how it spread once it was first done, but who did it first?

We were all taught about Christopher Columbus landing in what he thought was east India and the events that followed. But what isn't as clear (to me, anyway) is whether the subsequent enslavement and exploitation of the natives was a consequence of their meeting what they believed to be 'savages'--or if they were planning on conquering as much as they could, even if they had discovered a society with technology on par with their own.

The implication I always felt in school was that Columbus & co. landed looking to trade, and only conquered when they saw how easy it would be. Is that the case?

I have been listening to Mike Duncan's Revolutions podcast. He discusses the impact on the English Revolution of Cromwell not having a good succession plan. This is a carry over theme from his History of Rome podcast which discusses in some detail the problems that arose in the Roman Empire when succession was problematic.

I know Hitler had Goebbels as his Vice Chancellor. I also know the Admiral Donitz ended up taking over the regime after Hitler's suicide. Goebbels and Donitz were contemporaries to Hitler. My question is whether Hitler had a plan for raising a successor similar to the manner in which Julius Caesar adopted Augustus. If so, who or what was the plan?

I have a question about how an educated citizen of Troy would see themselves in relation to the Bronze Age Middle East. Would they even be aware of the kingdoms of the Fertile Crescent, Babylon, Uruk, Ugarit. Or were they more peripheral, maybe with some contact with the Hittites. Moreover, would somebody, say, like Priam be familiar with Middle Eastern Bronze Age texts. In other words could some of the characters of the Iliad have been reading Gilgamesh during the siege of Troy?

Discounting the Vikings in Greenland.

A search of this subreddit shows that people have suggested Soviet Space Cultures: Cosmic Enthusiasm in Socialist Societies and Red Rockets' Glare, but the first book is $60 on Amazon and the second isn't available as an ebook (which means I won't read it).

Any other good suggestions?

(Compared to WW1)