I've been told many a time by various history shows

The Vikings being dirty savages was a lie spread by their enemies, for the time they were actually rather vain and a well preened beard and bathing was an important thing for Viking cultures.

How much of it is is true? How vain by comparison to other cultures at the time?

I know it was a long process but I was curious if someone (intellectuals, or common people) saw it coming and if it was understood as a collapse while it was happening.

I guess the speed and strength of it wasn't the same across the whole empire, and maybe there is some record of someone knowing it was the beginning of the end, so to speak.

I have seen some of the previous questions asked about this on the subreddit, but haven't found any well-sourced answers.

(Making this as generic as possible, so that people feel comfortable submitting a range of answers:)

Say I am the headman of a pastoralist tribe, or coalition of tribes; we have entered a fertile river valley, besieged and captured the walled cities and fortifications, and driven out the previous owners. Now, I have heard that there is more profit to be had by taxing the surplus of this country, rather than picking up everything of value that I see and moving on to the next river valley.

Historically, what happened to the state apparatus following such a conquest? As an illiterate tribesman, how do I persuade the literate administrators that remain to collect taxes and deliver them to my tribesmen who remain?

Thanks!

Meaning, did Native Americans believe that Europeans were the same as them (same origin) or did they believe they were a different breed? Did their personal views of religion change as a result of meeting the colonists? Did these views differ among different tribes, or was there a general consensus about the colonists?

I have been reading a lot about the Operation Paperclip, which was the OSS (predecessor to CIA). I was surprised that it was to take Nazi Scientists away from both the Soviets and the Brits. So now I am wondering, was there any operation done by the Brits and Soviets that more or less did the same thing?

Hi all,

To preface, I'm sorry if this isn't the appropriate question for this subreddit. :(

After trying to post a comment earlier, I realized I really want to contribute more effectively and to do that, I'm looking for more material from the late 1800s on specifically the Intelligentsia of Russia.

I would prefer for non-fiction works that either portray the views of the intelligentsia (on themselves or peasants). I am also looking for non-fiction works based on parody of the intelligentsia.

So far I have read / am reading:

Any help would be greatly appreciated and I hope to better help this community :)

Apologies- this has definitely come up in a thread here before and I did my best at trying to find it through various searches/search engines. If someone wants to link the thread if they can remember it I'd be more than satisfied. Anyhow, essentially one of the Historians here was discussing Roman sexuality and stated that the act of cunnilingus was extremely taboo. That historian then provided a quote that I am trying to recollect that went something like 'If even cunnilingus doesn't make so and so blush nothing will.'

Its well known that the Cubans as well as Soviet advisers were deployed to Angola to support the MPLA as well as SWAPO. However, I remember reading somewhere that there was reported North Korean involvement in the conflict. For North Korea being known as the "Hermit Kingdom" this seems a bit out of character. Beyond the occasional saber rattling they really don't involve themselves past their neighbors. Does anyone know the extent of their support in Angola? Thank you in advance for any responses!

With the digitisation of primary sources, and increased access to secondary sources, how will the subject of history change in the coming years? Will there be a 'revolution' that transforms the subject from a physical medium (i.e. books and monographs) into a digital one, allowing for increased accessibility and input from a wider readership, or will history and historians remain resistant to the apparent global shift to digitisation?

The idea that Native American populations lived in tune with the land and overall maintained a "green" lifestyle with no waste is constantly brought up, but I was wondering if there are any examples of Native Americans destroying food chains, or over-farming etc. So this question isn't about the buffalo quote necessarily but whether the idea of Native Americans living in perfect harmony with their environment is true. Thanks for any insight!

Hi Reddit Historians,

I am reading about the French Revolution in AP European History today, and my book took a tangent to talk about the American Revolution. After AP World and American History, I became fairly familiar with the story of the American Revolution. However, none of the three courses have given me much insight into the debate over colonial representation.

Was colonial representation such a radical idea during this time that it was never considered, or was the idea considered and rejected by English monarch & parliament? And, in either case, could you help explain why the English responded so poorly to the demands of the colonies?

Thanks, J

TL;DR: Did England try to give American Colonies parliamentary representation before the American Revolution? If not, why?

I'm not talking about people who didn't like Casablanca, I'm talking about the "Troll 2" and the "Sharknado" of that time.

What were the various ranks? How many men would they command? What was their role? etc.

By resistance, I mean opposition to decolonization and by either the colonizing nation, imported colonial peoples, or indigenous inhabitants.

I've picked up that the northern Native Americans such as the Pueblo Indians had urban centers, but I'm not sure what happened to them or if non-Native Americans ever encountered them. were they depopulated by disease before settlers got that far? If settlers did encounter urban centers, how did they fit them into their 'this land is not being used properly' rationalizations?