This is maybe several questions in one:

• Is it accurate to call the period peaceful at all, or is it essentially rose tinted glasses to see 1815-1914 as nearly a century with no great power conflict?
• How conscious was the effort to maintain the peace between great powers vs how much of the peace was a byproduct of great powers simply wanting to maintain the balance of power? (i.e. Did Britain consciously seek peace on the continent for peace's sake or did they just not want to see Germany become hegemon for example, and peace was the best means for maintaining the balance?)
• Is it fair to say that whatever peace resulted was a product of a "realist" conception of international relations on the part of individual actors on the world stage or is the Congress of Vienna an example of an "idealist/liberal" institution for preserving international peace?

It was a major landmark in London for many decades so it seems strange that after the fire no one tried to rebuild. Why was that?

First, let's define feudalism and make sure we understand its origins. Feudalism was an economic and political system in which the political ruler — typically a king — had authority over all the land in his state, or "kingdom." The king would allocate parcels of land, or, "fiefs," to members of an upper class called the "nobility." In return for their land, members of the nobility would be expected to serve in the king's army, and fight his battles. On top of this, everyone in society who was not apart of the nobility or the Church lived on a nobleman's land. Instead of paying rent, they worked the land and maintained the agriculture. I'm not too sure where the Church fits into this, but that's basically the idea, right? It was very much a property-oriented political and economic system where the ruler shared property with individuals, and in return, they constituted a kind of wealthy military class. Everyone else (besides the Church) was subjected to the will of the landed nobility.

Second, feudalism's origins. I've often heard people say that feudalism led to the fall of the Roman Empire, or the fall of the Roman Empire led to feudalism. As the argument goes, when powerful Romans lost faith in the Roman state, they stopped sending men to fight in Rome's armies, and instead, they became very insulated, and this is how the fief originated. From what I understand, none of this is true. Feudalism actually originated in the 9th century during the Carolingian period. Charlemagne was emperor of what was essentially France and Germany, and his only means to control such a prodigious amount of land was to decentralize political control. Hence, he and his family developed the system described above. When the Normans invaded England in the 11th century, it spread, so western and and central Europe would practice feudalism for centuries.

My first question is whether I properly understand the definition and origins of feudalism. My second question, then, is what economic/political system preceded it? And I actually think this question cannot be answered without describing the economic/political system that existed two generations before feudalism. By this I mean, we must first distinguish the system of the late Roman Empire from feudalism, and then explain how the Germanic tribes (Visigoths, Franks, Ostrogoths, Lombards) altered the system that they encountered. My question could be phrased as such: What was the economic/political system that existed in the last century of the Roman Empire, how was it altered by the "Barbarian Invasion," and how was the economic system of the Barbarian kingdoms of the 6th-8th centuries different from the one enacted by the Carolingians in the 9th century?

I can understand why a regime like theirs would care about the content of the literature and would want it to praise their regime and not criticise it. But from what I have read the Soviets also mandated certain styles and considered others reactionary. Apparently certain forms of music were considered reactionary.

For example socialist realism. For a time it seems to have been the officially mandated genre (I'm not sure if that is the right word to use) in all aspects of art. But why did they care? Why couldn't an artist produce a pro-soviet painting that was abstract or sureal? As long as it is towing the party line why did the style matter so much?

In the western world it's common now for the partner to ask their other half for their hand in marriage directly.

When and how did it become so common to ask the woman directly for their hand in marriage? Rather than the traditional sit down with the parents and formally ask them for their daughters hand?

And was this a welcomed change or did this have backlash media/society wise?

Well, to begin with, this topic always fascinated me, and I’ve never, ever, found anything in regard to that until now. We know, from the Possen Speeches by Himmler and Goebbels’s diaries that they (the Nazis) saw their time as being the “perfect” one in history in order to do what, in their view, should be done. Himmler explicitly argued, when addressing the question of sending the children to their deaths that this was being done to avoid that a “generation of avengers would rise up to harass our children and grandchildren”, in another point he argues that “this will cause a problem for another generation, that will not, most certainly, have the same opportunity as we are having now” I always think to myself if there was any individual or group of individuals or, even, any institution of the Nazi bureaucracy that anticipated what to do in case of victory, how they would tell what had happened (of course they would lie all the way around), but what I want to know is exactly that: did someone whitin the Nazi framework ever thought about “how we’re going to deal with that?”. I found a very interesting citation on Wikipedia about a book by Historian Dieter Pohl, on his book “Der Holocaust als offenes Geheimnis”, as it follows:

“Traditional institutions of the Nazi state secretly began the search for a defence strategy for the post-war period in 1943: one had not been informed, and the SS was exclusively to blame.”

Unfortunately, I couldn’t find anymore information regarding the aforementioned “defense strategy” by the State.

I wish to thank the Community in advance.

During my time reading about history online, I've seen several ways historians have accessed primary sources, including being granted access to libraries and archives along with interviewing eyewitnesses in the case of more recent events. What I'm asking about is how historians today find primary sources on a subject they want to write a history about.

How and where do modern historians access primary sources?

How did many of the world's countries agree to the current system?

Who decided when year 1 would be?

We know that the 1800s was a time of great imperialism succeeding a time of colonialism in which European powers attempted to take control over regions across the African continent. France was one such European power; it wouldn't have been strange to see French administrators and military men in areas in West Africa, for example.

But what about the other way around? How prevalent was travel, and particularly immigration to France by Africans? Under what circumstances could Africans come to France to live and work in the 1880s in particular? What kind of ships would they board? What kind of connections would they need to have to be given that opportunity? Where would they live and what communities would they be able to exist in? I'm curious in general about multiculturalism in 1880s Paris and the kinds of industries they worked in.

I recently saw the Beowulf movie, and the dragon is portrayed as having a single vulnerable spot under the throat. I have not read the poem in a long time so I cannot remember if it appears there as well or if it is an adaptation by the screenwriters. This also famously appears in Tolkien and works derivative of his.

If the former is the case why did it stick around after the early 20th century?

Hello, I have come to ask a strange question of which I really would like answered.

I am a young person who is really interested in history, especially ancient and within my research and, well, gaming. I discovered a game alot of people may know, assassin's creed origins and I began to play. I loved the game because of its amazing representation of Egypt and what happened and from actual historians I was told that the game is the most historicaly accurate game of Egypt in the gaming culture. But, I have a tendency of becoming paranoid because of the words 'as we know it'. This has gotten be worried that if I take these representations to mix with my own knowledge, I may be missled by the real truth of what really happened. And I know this is very stupid but I was wondering if I could be reasured that we know that our knowledge is as close to the real events as ever. Again I am sorry for the stupidity. Thank you

Most of the IJN photos I see tend to be over- or under-exposed, or not well focused, or poorly composed, so it's difficult to see details on many of the ships. I can imagine a lot of possible reasons for this (including camera technology, different organizational priorities, loss of records, or dissemination on the English-language web) but I'm curious to know if there anyone has actually looked into this. Thanks!

Were the Incas aware of the civilizations in Mesoamerica and they did have diplomatic contact with each other? What were the differences in their military and cultural traditions, and how did they react to these differences? Did the Aztecs or any Mesoamerican state try to expand to South America or did the Incas ever try to expand to North America?

I’m writing a time travel series and am looking for resources on how people looked in specific time periods (height, dress, facial features, etc). I’m constantly googling to get answers but if anyone knows books or podcasts that address this topic specifically, I’d appreciate it. My characters go to a variety of places and time periods so I won’t list them all here.