They don't need a VISA to get in and Kuala Lumpur and Singapore are twin cities with Pyongyang. Why do they have a better relationship..?

this is an honest question, and I am only curious because it seems like every event I read about if you read just a little to far into it. at some point, some one brings up the fucking reptilians. so I am interested if any one knows when this particular subject became popular, or how far back does its origins go.

As an Indian, I've learned from school the cliched "because we already had a culture" reply. Just how true is this statement? I'm talking about British individuals not the army people or gov servants. From what I've read, yea sure we didn't exactly love Englishmen, but to be certain there was little hostility so to speak?

I was listening to the History of Rome podcast, and I became interested in knowing what type of societies existed amongst Germanic peoples.

I got the impression that the tribes (is that even the right word?) were many and fractured, but could unite from time to time to raise huge armies. Is this accurate? How did they have such a large population?

How did these peoples produce foodstuffs? I would think they would have to be mostly farmers to support a large population, but the podcast states that they lived in heavily forested areas that don't seem to support a large network of farms.

Did these peoples have cities? Were they nomadic or semi-nomadic? How did they grow to be so large? Did they have a better diet than their roman counterparts?

What was their religion like? Did they really burn people or make other sorts of human sacrifices?

How does a fractured group of peoples successfully resist Roman effort to subjugate them?

I've been reading recently about Spanish colonization of the new world and I've been getting conflicting answers about what caused the Great Price Inflation in Europe. Was it really the influx of Spanish gold and silver?

I've really only seen infantryman, cavalry and officers. Was there a best of the best of the best during that time?

EDIT Time period of american revolution to early British occupation of India, 1760-1870 would be a ballpark.

As I understand it, Ethiopia was colonised by Italy between 1936 and 1941.

Reading about the Afghan war earlier, and a thought struck me that there were probably Mujahideen veterans from both wars.

Just realized my strange title. I am meaning specifically veterans from the Soviet Union deciding to serve in the NATO war, be it from immigrating and becoming a citizen or for any reason really.

The guy did just invade Kuwait, gas a couple hundred thousand kurds and was known for torture.

Hi! I'm a newbie here so excuse me if I've made errors in framing my question or my understanding of the scenario.

I read that the German invasion through Ardennes was so successful since it enabled them to bypass the allied forces who had massed in the low countries expecting an invasion through there.

My question is what happened to these forces? Why didn't/couldn't they double back once they learnt of the German push through the forest?

How dependent is history upon the viewpoints of its researchers/writers, or perhaps more to point, how influenced are historians and others by the cultural factors in which they live?

By which I mean, how much difference is there between how various nations/cultures present history? In an increasingly globalized world, can there ever be a history that encompasses the world rather than the background of its writers? Is it a case of cultural hegemony that shapes history, presumably from an Euro-centric, Anglo-centric, and/or American centric narrative? Do other countries accept the English language narrative of history or do they prefer their own? If the latter, does it matter to have a fragmented and probably oftentimes contradictory history? Does the academic study of history reinforce the dominant cultural ideals of the ruling power?

It's a lot of questions, but the common theme I'm trying to get at here is, how is it decided whose narrative becomes the accepted history? Not simply varying from nations, but from class, from race, and many other variables. I realize that it may be in many cases the answer is "Whatever we can find, since there's so little."

Is it possible to establish a "true" history, or is it only possible have a culturally based history that will be competing with many other histories?

Say it's 1865 or thereabouts; late enough that train travel is pretty common in the Western world. I'm a middle- to upper-class individual (so I have the time and money) and I'd like to go from my home near, say, Philadelphia to visit my aunt in Manhattan. I don't particularly care about the precise routes; what I'm curious about is mostly the logistics of planning and initiating the trip: how did you get your ticket? Were trains ever overbooked like modern planes are? Would the ticket be for a reserved seat? Could you check a bag to be carried in a luggage car, or were you responsible for dealing with whatever you took with you? Things like that - I'm really curious about the practicalities of it once train travel was becoming common but before it was routine enough that, say, people were regularly commuting long distances by train.