I noticed that the world trusted us with the economy by making the USD the global reserve currency in 1944, after a 3 term presidency with FDR. The 22nd amendment confuses me to no end. Academic surveys rate FDR as the 2nd best president of all time, and it appears the US rose to be the rank 1 economy under his rule. I'm hoping to understand the collective psyche that could result in banning long term leadership after such a success story?

I guess I'm interested in the events that lead to the fall of the Qing, the ensuing chaos and what gave the communists the edge to win in 1947.

It is my understanding that the order of the dragon protected Christianity against the muslims. Does the dragon hold any Christian religious meaning, or was it a local one?

I've heard that one of the reasons that the internet started to take off in the late 80's/early 90's was that the end of AT&T's monopoly control of the US phone system in 1984 made it possible for people to start connecting equipment to the phone lines that weren't controlled by AT&T and so modems became readily available. But why did it take until 1984 for AT&T to get broken up? What changed?

I'm currently reading about the Ottomans and I've noticed this is something of a theme. Are there other dynasties where killing family members was a viable way of getting to the top?

Would really like to find some books or texts that discuss it in more detail. If someone could point me in the right direction, I would appreciate it.

Was the KKK for joining the first world war or against it. What was the KKKs opinion of the Nazi's during before and after Americas involvement in the war?

It's a poem written around 700 BC, how and why did this work survive? Do we have original documents from that time, or do we have later copies?

According to history and all that is Hinduism (sanatana dharma) a religion or just a mythology. I ask this because Greek mythology and Hinduism have a lot of similarities so of one of them is a mythology shouldn’t Hinduism also be a mythology. Another thing, is the Indo Aryan migration theory .According to historians, the Indo Aryans migrated into India and mixed with the local dravidian population. They brought the vedas and sanskrit. And the two cultures mixed. If this is true then how can Hinduism be true if its two different cultures combined? Also, Why did gods like Indra become minor and shiva, vishnu, and brahma become bigger in one of the vedas ?( I forgot which one) I was also wondering about Indo European history and was hoping someone could explain.

Note; I used words like religion and culture to make it easier to understand. This is not hate, im a hindu and these questions were on my mind and I want answers so I can build my faith.

I was listening to a podcast today and the host was talking about how much literature from the past just doesn't exist anymore (Sulla wrote a memoir!), and I began to wonder if historians are still looking for this stuff? What are the chances that historians will find something like more of Polybius’ history, or the Cypria? Is this something that scholars are still actively looking into, or is it more of a case deeming these things “lost” until proven otherwise? Are there recent examples of something we thought was lost turning up?

I am looking to buy some books about Japanese History bust I don't wanna fall into those "History for curious" kind of books, I'm trying to find some good Reading historycally accurate, something that Goes from early Japan till end of Meiji period. Or even about some specific period.

I have heard that using "Byzantine" to denote the Eastern Roman Empire is a modern convention, so what terms did the pre-modern claimants to the Roman Title use to describe the commonly called "Romans."

I found about a trivial reference to it while reading Les Miserables, and I read the Wikipedia page. I was looking for more insight on why was it introduced. Grateful if anyone enlighten me. Thank you.

Hi! I'm an atheist who's trying to get answers about Christianity. In my opinion most arguments for the existence of God don't really make sense, but besides the philosophical defense I also have to consider the evidence for the resurrection. The Apologist at my church, who has researched this stuff for most of his life, says that there is a mountain of evidence to support the resurrection compared to the relatively miniscule evidence for most historical events. Evidence includes the eyewitness reports of the apostles and over 200 witnesses (who had little incentive to lie and were unlikely hallucinating or crazy in some way), the medical impossibility of Jesus simply surviving the crucifixion, and the abundance of surviving accounts of Jesus and the disciples who claim to have seen Jesus resurrected, which would become the letters and the gospels. I am worried that I might be getting biased information, so I'm just looking and hoping for a second opinion.

On a somewhat personal note, I'm also kind of an idiot who isn't very good at seeing logic, or a lack of logic, when it's in front of me. I'm trying to be open minded, but I'm scared of being tricked or of falling for a fallacious argument. In other words, any help would be appreciated here.

I've seen some people mention that it was created for the good of society ages ago but how true is that really? And if it really was created for the good of society, then why and when did it change so drastically to be a oppressive force to oppress the people for thousands of years?

I picked this book up at a local bookstore because it was cheap at £3 and and I don't think I know enough about France.

The question is pretty well summed up in the title of this post. I'm wondering how reliable the author is in terms of getting the facts right. Of course it would be silly to assume there will be no bias at all in the book, but I'd like to know whether or not it is so biased as to take away from the actual facts of history.

Dogs were domesticated so long ago that they traveled with people to the Americas. As far as I know, dogs were also only domesticated in Eurasia - aside from the extinct Fuegian dog - and then spread outwards from there. Dogs even traveled to New Zealand and Polynesia with people, and reached Australia thousands of years ago.

But I feel like I've heard very little about dogs in sub-Saharan Africa, aside from a potentially false memory of groups using hunting dogs in the Congo. Were there domestic dogs in this part of the world, and if so, what were they used for and what were they like?

Any timeline is fine, but I'm most interested in Frankish or pre-Frankish Gascony. Even something that focuses on a specific major city would be fine. Preferably in English, I guess.

I know salt was called the white gold and very valuable in medieval times, but I wondered just HOW MUCH it was worth in 13th century central europe.

Like in a relatable sense, what could a kilo of salt buy you in those times for example

South Africa was a British "settler colony" like America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Yet while those colonies attracted vast amounts of British settlers who were able to out-populated the Natives, the British South African population never surpassed the Native African or even Dutch Boer population. Very few other European immigrants arrived in the colony either, even after gold and diamonds were discovered. Given that Colonial South Africa was similar to Australia (climate, gold rush) and Canada (seperate white population), why did it attract so few migrants?

A significant portion of the Germans who became 1st generation citizens of East Germany would have been either active supporters of the Nazi regime, or at least tacit accomplices. Considering Nazis saw communism as one of their arch-enemy and an existential threat, I'd imagine that more than a few of the new citizens of the newly formed DDR shared this view.

How did these people react to the fact that they now had to live under a socialist state backed by the Bolsheviks?