In the periods of the Atlantic slave trade, did Europe steal Africa's wealth that stopped Africa's development?

Do you know any good works well accepted by scholars?

I was checking the territorial changes occuring after the events of WW2, and was dumbfounded at the change of Hungary's size. How does even survive through that? This being less than a hundred years ago, I assume it still has some effect on the hungarian public?

Hi, I'm preparing for university and I want to study Ancient History. I did Classics and Ancient History in my school(college - UK), I looked at:

-Aeneid

-Iliad

-Sophocles three Theban plays (Antigone, OTK, OAC)

-Eurypides' Medea and Hippolytus

-A handful of sources like Herodotus.

But I want to ground my understanding of the ancient Greek world, it can be from Homer's time onward to the birth of Christ. What I'm asking is, are there any stand-out works which anyone interested in Ancient Greek society, mythology etc. NEEDS or should read? Particularly if they want to study it?

I apologize if this is the wrong sub for this, I'm new. Or if the question is too general.

Specifically that they were admired by everyone, well fed, fit and commanded respect. Its such a stark contrast to how the Russian POW's were treated that I thought it might be embellished.

Specifically in relation to the battle of france and the bypass of the Maginot line, while I've heard the allies were waiting in the North.

Why was the Ardennes considered impassable, and what did the Germans do that changed that?

The title says it all. I'm having a lot of trouble getting this question answered and I'd really appreciate the help!

like the people who traditionally supported bonny prince Charlie in scotland still have mild rivalries with those that didn't, the england-france rivalry is probably related to 1066 and etc so was there some point that people turned their noses up at essex?

or is it just a fact the posh people went west from london and the working classes east?

And what do we know about the history of chinese explorers?

I am asking this question specifically about mammals due to the low number that live in the area now. Beyond beaver, muskrat, and chipmunk the region is generally lacking. How would this have been different in the past, or would it have? What sort of diversity existed among mammals in that area in the past?

Also is whale oil the main reason people went whaling? If not what was?

I finished it recently and couldn't help but feel like that the book paints a rather negative image of many of the main characters that were involved in the dealings of the succession. Be it his wife Aisha that comes off as extremely power hungry, Ali, ultimately, as pretty naive and proud in his dealings with Muawiya, the governor of Syria.

It was a very interesting read, but I caught myself thinking more than once: "Are you serious? THAT happened? By the people closest to a man supposedly free of fault?"

I am not anti islamic at all, and don't seek to reinforce any prejudice, quite the contrary. The years following Mohamed's death seem incredibly brutal though on many levels and I would love to hear an expert's opinion on it. Thank you!

In many sources, you encounter talk about chivalric codes that disallowed certain actions from knights or rulers. For instance, in one example a knight who is 'beaten' by another can yield, but if he does he's just left alone on the battlefield, and it's up to him whether to obey his word or break his parole and run off (or rejoin battle).

One example of this is Guillaume des Barres; apparently Richard "Lionheart" bested him in battle and he yielded, but instead of waiting like a good boy, he ran off and found himself another horse, thereby being free to fight another day. While the English were mad at him over it, the French king didn't seem to mind terribly much, and came to his defense during the Crusades...

Another example is if a city is under siege, the besieging lord is required to allow them to run off with messengers to plead for help. If the help did not come they could 'honorably' surrender because their liege lord did not help them as he should have done.

My question is, how did these war rules develop? As soon as they're agreed, the person who reneges upon them has an instant advantage, so that they became a staple of W European combat is perplexing to me.

Also, are examples like des Barres frequent? Were knights frequently accused of being dishonorable to save their own skins? I can't imagine a knight sitting idly by and watching as his friends are run down, just because he told the now-absent lord that he would stay put and would no longer fight...

Sorry for rambling, but I think you get the point!

There seems to be so much that happened in this one year (French student protests, assassination of MLK, invasion of Czechoslovakia, election of Nixon, etc.) across the world. Is there any book that tries to discuss the common socio-economic factors that lead to one of the most tumultuous years in modern history?

Is there one? Since the Polish monarchy in 1795 was elective, how is it determined who might be a pretender to the throne?

As a side question, are there still any Piasts (the pre-commonwealth dynastic rulers of Poland) kicking around?

I would assume that schools in Southern States don't portray their States as being the "bad guys." How is it taught and in what way does this differ from the northern view?

Are the ancestors of modern Italians Ancient Romans? Or are they primarily descendents of Germanic tribes? If the latter is the case, are there any descendents of Romans?