It seems that emperors and their wives, as well as commoners, senators and everyone in between had connections to these groups, which were based around chariot teams and were identified by color.

What kind of social power did they hold?

So I always wonder how the colonist were able to contend with the British Navy. I always knew about the French and Spanish helping the Americans but I thought it was primarily the with money. Recently I seen comments saying that the French did most of the heavy lifting in this war and there is no way we could of won with out them. So would you say this is more of a French victory then an American one?

Also how important was Spains role in this war?

And last our last war with the UK was in 1812, but by the Civil War, some 50 years later, the south felt comfortable enough with the English to ask for their help. By the time WWI came, little more then a 100 years maybe 3 generations past, the media all had a prejudice toward the British in the war, with the exceptions of our German population. Is that a quick amount of time for a country forgive another country it had war with? Was their an event that cause a friendlier relationship with Britain?

I was recently reading that america played in the first ever international game and that in the 1870s they had some of the finest players in the world. So I am wondering why did Cricket fail as a sport in the USA?

Just watched The New World and was wondering how life was aboard those ships that charted for new lands. I want to do extensive research for a project

Hi /r/askhistorians,

Apologies if this isn't a question on history per se, on the other hand I don't think it goes under the banned "help me with my homework" category either.

I'm an undergraduate in Iranian studies that recently got a job as a tour guide to Iran. This tour is quite exclusive and most of the customers will be older academics, well-educated people, and I'm supposed to be an expert on many aspects of Iran, especially its history. I have studied the history of Iran before and know its outlines quite well, but since our examinations were usually home essays I have not committed a huge amount of facts to my memory. For this tour I need to be able to answer a lot of questions on the spot, and I have about one month and a half to prepare. Do you have any tips on how I should go about learning all of this? Should I just read books from cover to cover as usual or are there any special techniques?

I am from the Republic of Macedonia, so this is a popular debate here. People of this sub are probably familiar with the name dispute between Greece and my country. I'm not a fool to believe that we are ancestors of the once great king, since we are Slavs (although the Slavs did mix with the people who lived here upon their arival), but the current natuonalist government of mine is trying to form a new national identity, building huge monuments of Alexander and Philip, the stupidest thing they could do, which ruins the neighbour relations we have with Greece. But were Alexander and the macedons actually greeks? At that time the the greeks hated macedons and considered them savages, the known statesman and philosopher Demosthenes held open speeches against Philip and his "tribe". Now the modern day greeks believe that he was greek. But on the other hand, during his campaigns, Alaxander spread hellenic culture wherever he went. However, this could have been a result from his teachings by the great Aristotle. It's all very confusing to me. I'd like to have some of your insights on the matter.

As per Wikipedia, Mahabharata was initially composed around 400 BC. If Mahabharata was composed around 400 BC it should have some reference to Buddha / Mahavira who were born some where around 500 BC. Also an important historical event during that time was Persian invasion by Darius the great in 519 BC. There is also no mention of that historical event.Are there any sources which try to assert on the correct time line of composition of Mahabharata?

Additional Questions:

• could somebody give me a quick summary about the entire battle?

• why was the battle for verdun such a significant event in WW1?

im asking all this because I got a WW1 themed evening comeing up and I want to be able to contribute to at least 1 Subject :D

As an additional question, why didn't the Vikings settle in North America?

In studying more and more history, I'm amazed at the apparent lack of ties and similar sorts of garments in antiquity, compared to their ubiquity today. Where did they come from, and how did they get the meaning they have today?

It wasn't until the end of the war with the advent of the Stg-44 did the concept of a mid-powered cartridge exist. Throughout almost the entirety of the war, there were only two infantry weapons - small submachine gun (Thompsons, MP4s) and high-powered battle rifles (M1 Garand, Mosin Nagant).

There was pretty much no concept of IBA during the war, so what drove the decision to arm infantry with weapons that were so powerful, insanely so in the case of the M1 Garand firing a .30-06 round, when that also meant carrying very heavy ammo, dealing with high amounts of recoil, and heavier weapons and barrels to deal with the pressures involved?

for example If I was a Saxon in 266 would I have heard of Gallienus?

"Europe" not including Russia for the sake of simplicity

I recently read a biography of Cixi Taihou written by Chang Jung, I think the title is The Concubine that Changed China? That book really puts Cixi Taihou in a very bright, awe-inspiring light, which made her as a tragic sacrifice for her country and a victim of Kang Youwei.

But since I am Chinese (albeit born and grew up in Indonesia), my parents used to tell me bedtime stories about Cixi Taihou, and she was always a cruel empress who stole the throne from her son, a lusty woman who frolicked with the eunuchs, poisoning her fellow Taihou, and many more. Like she is the ultimate villain for Qing Dynasty.

So which one is the real Cixi Taihou? What really prompts her cruelty and what makes her cast into such a bad villain? Is the book by Chang Jung tells the truth or is she exaggerating Cixi's greatness?

In other words, when the mass expelling of Germans occurred after WWII, how many ended up in which side of Germany? Was there a particular disproportionate dispersal among either the west or east?

It seems there are many rebellions in the modern age where the rebellions succeed in overthrowing the existing government and then fail to establish a stable government in the end which got me thinking: what caused america to turn a rebellion of colonies to one of the most influential superpowers of the last century? Was there any one thing or combination of things they did right or was it just dumb luck?

I started thinking about this because of the 4th celebrations and how it seemed most rebellions seem to end in either another dictator or more sectarian violence while the US just seemed to "make it" in terms of country status.