From what i understand, independent rulers who were in the suzerain of other rulers were to pay taxes and other tributw to other rulers who beat them in a war.

How did this type of institution worked exactly? And why did the kingdom of china decided to use it, instead of just anexing the defated countries?

Originally, I had wondered about this more in a Western European context, but I’d be interested to hear about other places and cultures too.

As I understand, Japan was quite a big source of silver at the time, so consideration of getting concessions from Japan, a weaker power than China at the time, would probably have looked easier, no?

During the Civil War, the Confederate States claimed to be the legitimate successors to the American Revolution. That said, the Founding Fathers (defined here as the first five presidents, plus Franklin and Hamilton) were very critical of slavery - even the ones that owned slaves, like Jefferson. The Confederacy, by contrast, considered slavery not only justified, but good, and at the cornerstone of their national vision.

How did the Confederacy reconcile these two opposing concepts?

I have seen this sentiment not uncommonly and it just seems very strange. They say Japan fought from day one and got little in return. But if one actually looks at the facts, they were dragged in by UK with promise of German Pacific possessions and they actually got it after invading pretty much undefended lands. Their siege at Qingdao was not too bloody and they even got to keep it despite it being most definitely Chinese inhabited territory.

Their contribution to the war effort was then largely limited to hunting German merchant raiders and transport of ANZAC soldiers. Receiving the islands seems to be a pretty fair deal for Japan. Or is it about the "Racial Equality Clause"?

In many Wikipedia articles and threads on this subreddit about various nationalistic movements from the 19th century (like Italian unification nationalism, Czechoslovak nationalism, Serbian nationalism, etc...) it is noted that the "intellegentsia" played a crucial role in propelling nationalistic movements forward, by writing "patriotic/nationalistic literature".

For example, poets would write "patriotic poetry", writers would write "nationalistic novels", and philosophs and artists would somehow do their part too.

1. What exactly is the intellegentsia? Which people does the term encompass? How did it come into existence?

And most importantly: how "did it work"?

I find it hard to believe that a bunch of smart people just decided to join up together and "create nationalism" like it is a business plan for the establishment for a new business.

Also, the intellegentsia existed outside the nationalistic framework, too, right? It did not solely exist to "create nationalism", right?

2. What did the works of culture they created to support nationalism look like? What would a patriotic piece of poetry or a nationalistic novel look like? Like, what makes it different from a non-patriotic or non-nationalistic piece of poetry or novel? What about drawn art or philosophical texts? What about other things that were created in pursuing this goal?

3. How did these works of culture help propel the movement forward? I find it hard to believe that reading a novel would suddenly enflame my desire for a United States of Europe (I already do but that is besides the point), especially if I am illiterate or at least not literate in my country's language, like most people in oppressed countries in the 19th century were.

For a little further background, what I'm really asking here is how linked in to the "science news" of the day could I be? Would it just be some heavenly sign with no context, or would I be more like "ah yes the priest said the bishop said he got a letter from Rome saying we are seeing something last seen 75 years ago"? Or would my understanding be completely linked to education or class regardless of location?

I'm mostly curious how much of an elite or localized phenomenon more cutting edge ideas were in Europe at the time. It's a bit anachronistic to call it science or even "natural philosophy"...but that's more or less what I'm getting at.

Hello! I am searching for books, websites, or other materials on indigenous culture in North America. I would prefer something written by someone of that heritage to ensure authenticity. Any suggestions?

I have read a great deal about the Pacific War my whole life, and I have often come across the statement that commerce raiding by submarine was instrumental in weakening Japan's ability to wage war. I have read that the tactics used by the United States were greatly influenced by Nazi Germany's wolf pack strategies, and that the Japanese failed to implement effective countermeasures for the entire war, unlike the Allies in the Atlantic, who were able to turn back the U-boat threat from 1943 onwards.

So I wonder, were the Japanese aware of the grave nature of the threat? Were submarines not taken seriously or the effects of commerce raiding not taken seriously? Was it a technological and production issue where they had a plan but not enough resources to implement it? Did the IJN study German tactics and if so, did they themselves implement them with their submarines or try to develop countermeasures?

Police procedurals/dramas are a huge proportion of TV shows, and have been for decades - from episodic shows like the countless Law and Order varieties to genre hybrids like Brooklyn 99.

How did this start? What factors contributed to this type of show being so common? How have audience demand and network programming decisions interacted?

I'm mostly familiar with Anglosphere televison, but would love to hear about the history of cop shows in non-English television as well.

I'm curious whether there is an academic consensus on the historical importance of nuclear deterrents, spanning 1945-2000. Is it an obvious conclusion that nuclear deterrents and mutually secured destruction completely shaped* the nature of international conflicts in this period? Or is this a more subtle issue than politicians, armchair historians, and pundits would have you believe?

*"completely shaped" is obviously a bit open to interpretation...I'm thinking something along the lines of: is it imaginable that the lack of direct, armed conflict between US and USSR was not primarily due to nuclear weapons, but could in fact be attributed to other causes, either fully or partly?

Were they left alone by crusaders and Arabs or did the crusaders not distinguish them from Arabs and treated them just the same? Did the Arab look at them as possible traitors for religion’s sake? Did they take sides? How about the church itself? Did the Syriac/orthodox/Coptic…etc churches support or oppose the crusade? I just wonder because whenever there’s a doc about the crusades they’re never mentioned but I’m sure they existed and it must’ve been awkward…

Are there any truth to those statements above?

Also, at the time Scipio Aemilianus was a Roman General, and Cato was supposedly Governor of an island.

Would a Roman senator be able to show such disrespect to a king? In Egypt or elsewhere. What about the relative of a governor. How about a lowly Roman citizen? I find these interactions fascinating.

I would like to ask if anyone here knows the aerial war activity in the province of Capiz, located in Panay Island, Philippines? I would especially like to know the names of the B-17 crew Milton Walter Meyer mentioned in his book, Letters Home : The Meyers & Capiz 1919-1943.

I want to know the names and the fate of the B-17 crew that arrived in Capiz in December 22, 1941, if they had survived the war. Meyer's book only mentions this, but doesn't mention anything else.

I'm a fiction writer researching material for a short story and am committed to historical accuracy. I could not find any information on this subject. Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. Love this Sub!!!!!

I was wondering if the US 395 was a route for (not sure what the best term is) American settlers? It seems now like it would be a good route to a hospitable climate? Were there Native American tribes along the way? Was the climate good for travel at that time? Was southern California seen as a good place to settle?

Sorry if it's not the right place to ask this question but I have close to zero knowledge of US history and I was looking to fix it. I'm looking for a book that primarily focuses on events that happened between 1700-1900.

To many, the idea of serving in a WW2 submarine probably isn't all that appealing. I appreciate the conscription conditions were different for each nation too, but generally speaking, was being a submarine crewman something people chose to do or were such postings forced on seamen?