I don't understand why he includes a big section on the past history of Greece when the book was about the Peloponnesian War?

Especially with the rapid industrialization of Germany compared to Japan, since both had been feudal for quite some time.

I'm looking for the best Japanese history books that go in depth about everything. I can read English and Japanese, money is not a problem, and I would like to read everything from 660 BC to now. If you could let me know of a reliable publisher or author, I would be really thankful

Before Greece conquered Persia, the Persian and Babylonian empires were some of the biggest and most advanced civilization in their time of rule respectably, with Nebuchadnezzar defeating three armies at the second fight of Carchemish, and then king Xerxes and his campaign west to Greece. What happened to these nations during the Roman rule?

It strikes me that plantation agriculture, worked by African slaves, was an incredibly profitable system for European colonists in the New World in the early modern period. However it seems there were no attempts to do this in Africa itself, despite a suitable climate and the local availability of slave labour. There are a few reasons I can think of, listed below, but I'd be interested if anyone had a fuller explanation.

• More difficult to keep slaves when their own ethnic groups were in escaping distance (which was the disadvantage of native slaves in the Americas)
• European vulnerability to African diseases
• Greater African resistance to European incursions compared with the New World.

i would like to know firstly were their respective nicknames translated accurately the dragon of echigo and the tiger of kai?

are there any depections of them or their battle armour around or in museums?

and what are some cool uncommon facts unknown about these men and what they accomplished as i have only found conflicting reports on the interwebs, thankyou!

My friend and I were talking the other day and he made the suggestion that Alexander's army would still be effective well into the 13th century because up until the invention and widespread use of firearms that military technology really had not changed much. How true is this?

I've heard that there is evidence aside from the bible to suggest there was some kind of great flood.

In my research I found that the main triggers were mainly pulled by France and GB:

• GB: Occupation of Egypt without France.
• France: Expansionist policy in Western Africa that threatened the sphere of GB and pushed it towards acquiring land. Also the French acquired land in the Congo area.

However: France didn't make the expansionist policy in Western Africa its official policy before GB occupied Egypt and also ratified the Teke-Brazza treaty (in Congo) afterwards. But there are also a few points that speak against the British fault: They wanted to occupy Egypt with the french, who then backed out in the last minute. Also France had to handle with problems in Tunisia during that time and was thus not unhappy with the occupation of Egypt by GB.

So who's fault was it or is there just no way to answer that? Would the scramble have happened without any of those developments, simply because the emerging powers in Europe (namely Germany and Italy) didn't allow for any power vacuums anymore?

"2. Bergkompani" of the norvegian army trained in England came and releaved the liberating sovjets from Finnmark. They then started dealing justice, shaving the heads of women. Was this a very common shaming practise throughout Europe, or was this an order from allied command? I cant find any proof of earlyer displays of shameshaving, at least not in Norway, witch leads me to belive that this is an inherited practise from England or an centralised order to the liberating forces.

I just recently watched a documentary put out by BBC, about an expert attempting to disprove the Anglo-Saxon invasion theory. Whats the story behind all this? It greatly interests me, as it seems some geneticists say differently (When confronted by the expert).

Are the Anglo Saxon invasions greatly exaggerated?

Exactly as the title states. Information on any weapon is appreciated. In as much detail as you can reasonably give.

Can anyone point me towards some resources on what border regions were like before there were borders? Is there a word or term for it I might not know of?

I'm not sure if I'm asking this in the right section and I couldn't seem to find it while searching Reddit. Thanks for any answers!

The industrial revolution is something I find fascinating. But why was Russia so slow to jump on the industrialization bandwagon, when the rest of western Europe was advancing so much? I realize Russia did put industrialization plans in the early 20th century, but why didn't they start earlier with the rest of Europe in the 19th century?

I would imagine that there were many communities in both these areas that never encountered United States settlers before the war, and were entirely Spanish speaking. After the war, how quickly would these communities become aware of the change in rule? What would impact them first -- cultural changes or legal changes? Are there any communities in the Southwest today (or 20 years ago, I guess) that remained Spanish speaking and kept all facets of traditional Mexican culture?

Being that its near Halloween and I'm having a hard time finding accurate sources on this, I would like to know if any ancient historians have any information on the oldest mentioning of ghost or spirits.

Thank you.

Despite its proximity to mainland Africa, the Canary Islands are owned by Spain, and throughout my research of western Africa I have yet to see any actual mainland African civilizations conquer it. Which raises the question of if there where any. Another question, did people of the Canary Islands ever conquer land in mainland Africa?