Do you believe that history will, at some point, come to an end? I am not talking about natural disasters or nuclear war but that history obeys some short of historical laws. Marx for example believed that all societies would at some point reach communism and believed that socialism is the end of human progress. Fukuyama, I think, argues that we have already reached the end of history. What do you think, are there laws in history, and will it at some point come to its inevitable conclusion?

Hi, sorry if this is the wrong place to ask this question. What are the core books I should read to learn about the 1970s, especially relating to the unions, the welfare state and stagflation? What should I read to get a good perspective from the left and the right?

I see a lot of movies where soldiers shooting, but there commander says, "Fix bayonets" and they charge the enemys. But why didn't they have there bayonets on before hand?

I feel like it would be more practical because if a enemy was charging you, you would have to put on your bayonet or use your gun as a club. You wouldn't need to waste time putting on your bayonet. Was it harder to reload with a bayonet or something?

Extra question: Why were bayonets somethings to the side or on top of the barrel instead of directly below it?

American media tends to depict this time as a revolutionary and inflammatory era full of hippies and free love, and the spread of drugs, frequent protests, etc...

How popular was this in real life? Were people living the hippie lifestyle as numerous as tv and movies portray, or were they only a small but memorable section of society? How widespread did drug use and anti-government protests become during this time?

I am aware that methods of food preservation date back centuries - but eating smoked or tinned food that is very old could still bring about stomach upsets. Is it just a case of people expecting the odd stomach upset as part of life? Or did people have considerably stronger stomachs?

Did they see it as a heresy of Christianity, or did they immediately acknowledge it as its own thing? How has this perception changed over time?

The story of how and why Jean Bernadotte became king of Sweden is pretty crazy to say the least, if I saw it in a movie I would say it was totally absurd, but it happened

Now, if I understand correctly, the Swedish parliament had a few requirements that wanted to fulfil:

• The monarch must not be related to the current royal family, since they feared no matter how they chose it would start a civil war

• The monarch must be christian, because church and state were so intertwined back then

• The monarch must be competent, because they feared they were one or two wars away from being annexed by Russia

• The monarch must not be aligned with Russia because of the previous point

And they looked all over Europe for a good candidate, with royal people rejecting the offer left and right, until the representative they sent to Napoleon met this random guy, he liked him, and he offered him the throne

Now, there was one royal family that met all their requirements but they never contacted: the Ethiopian royal family

They were christian, a different kind of christian but that hasn't been a problem, many monarchs became protestant or catholic for political reasons. They were competent, maybe not all of them, but in the Ethiopian royal family there had to be at least a few competent people, after all they successfully resisted the Ottomans and Europeans for centuries. And finally they were completely unrelated to any European royal family and to Russia.

Of course there was the issue with racism, but they ended up choosing a literal peasant, a son of a farmer with no prestige at all. In contrast the Ethiopian royal family was a centuries old dynasty, ruling an ancient and respected nation, one of the first to convert to christianity, heck, they could have argued they were descendants of the legendary Prester John... although maybe I'm wrong and racism was such a big issue they would have preferred any white person before a king with dark skin

In summary, given my understanding of that situation, the Ethiopian royal family was the ideal place for the Swedish parliament to look for a new king, but they never even considered it, and I don't know why

Hi there I'm writing a report for history about the writing of the Communist manifesto and have to find some sources to annotate and have to find a source that is out of the box and no one would think about would anyone either a historian or a regular person be able to give me some interesting sources or msg me about the communist manifesto and answer the 1 of the 3 questions. What caused karl marx to write the Communist manifesto. How significant was karl marx in his lifetime. How does the Communist manifesto still affect the world today

Hey everyone!

I was thinking of reading the Byzantium trilogy books by John Norwich but wanted to make sure it’s not going to be a huge waste of time. Are they good books in terms of readability and in the information being presented?

Thank you!

Tonight I cooked a chicken katsu, noting standard curry spices in the sauce. Another foreign ingredient, worcestershire sauce is popular in Japanese food. This must be a wider trend.

What is the history of global cuisine and ingredients influencing Japanese cooking? And are these influences felt mostly in 'pop/fast food' style or more generally in the country's diet? Was post-WWII a sea-change in receptiveness to international styles or does this pre-date the war?

Please note I do not have a strong understanding of what is and is not traditional Japanese food. I realise chicken katsu is a highly internationalised dish. So apologies if the premise is an issue

In recent decades, we’ve heard much about the impact of invasive species on new ecosystems - be it Eurasian species in the Americas, American species in Australia, Canadian species in Argentina, or whatever. The Suez Canal allows sea life to move freely between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea, so what effect did this have on both environments?

I am a bit confused about pants before the 1800s. I guess in the 1800s suspenders were invented and then in the 1900s belts replaced them. But before the 1800s I am a little bit confused.

One thing I seem to understand are tunics and hose. Tunics would have a belt on top of them for some reason and come down far. Hose were like really long socks. So what was going on in the crotch area? If all theyre wearing are tunics and hose whats keeping their genitals warm?

Trousers or breeches also apparently existed since ancient times but I am unclear on how they worked and how popular they were (apparently unpopular among nobles to judge by all these florentine noblemen prancing about in hose and belted tunics). I do remember ye olde Osprey Publishing watercolors of Scandinavian outdoorsmen and half naked Celtic barbarians wearing what appeared to be very thick and baggy chest-high trousers held up by I guess a draw string. How did they keep their pants up? Did they fit above or below the hipbone? Did Roman legionnaires wear undies under their tunics and sandals? What happened in the early modern era and the 20th century that led to the creation of modern pants? Why did tunics disappear and get replaced by shirts that have a belt UNDER them and not over top of them?

My main point of interest is in waistlines, belts, suspenders, drawstrings etc. I have just been reading that some hose was actually attached to the tunic and therefore it was indirectly connected to the shoulders (sort of like suspenders or overalls). That sort of stuff is what I want to know more of. The physics of historical clothing, how it fit on, how it kept the elements out etc. Pretty tricky subject to read up on but obviously a lot of reenactors have seriously investigated it all for whatever their period of choice is, which is why I tried to find a reenactment subreddit before coming here. Unfortunately the reenactors seem to be kind of microscopically focused on one or another period and are quite hard to find on google search anyways by my standards, so any pointers in the right direction would be well entertained.

I'm looking for good, well-researched books on the history of Hollywood, especially the foundation of Hollywood. Any help would be appreciated.

Vancouver/Toronto currently are seeing housing prices at a level where one would need to earn about $200K+ a year to afford a home, making this beyond the reach of most younger workers. Similar situations are occurring in many larger US cities.

Many argue that this is due to housing being treated as an investment asset rather than a necessity.

Given that historically the distance one could commute has been far far shorter than it is today, it feels like there should be some parallels to this throughout history - are there any? and if so how did things turn out?

A couple quick questions:

1. Were all or most medieval texts heavily decorated and illuminated with perfect calligraphy? Or were those mostly for religious use and wealthy patrons?

2. Are there surviving examples of history, science, and math books from the medieval era (specifically looking for any from 13th or 14th centuries).

3. How commonly were books written in a local language and not languages like Latin or Greek?

I read about risk of communist influence, hundreds or tens of thousands dead over those 21 years due to US involvement etc, but what was a realistic alternative to what the US and the countries did?

If no one did anything wouldn't the communists eventually do coups with the USSR's blessing and eventually nuclear weapons would be brought in like in Cuba, giving the USSR's nukes extremely short flight time to key US cities? Doesn't exactly seem to be in anyone's interest.

Not looking to litigate the various theories on the JFK assassination or even discuss the details.

I want to ask this because it seems there’s been a recent surge in mainstream interest regarding the JFK assassination. I also feel like it’s proponents are beginning to present themselves in a more mature, professional fashion by scraping off the kitsch “conspiracy theory” subculture deitritus that’s built up over the last 60-ish years around it. I’m thinking in particular about recently released and respectable works like The Devil’s Chessboard and JFK And The Unspeakable. It really feels like there has been an effort to take back discussion of the JFK assassination from the weirdos and offer a compelling, realistic motivation and explanation. It isn’t just the psychotic ramblings of a disturbed mind anymore. Not for nothing there is a deluge of circumstantial evidence of a conspiracy surrounding the event but of course no smoking gun and therefore no satisfying resolution. Perhaps too it should be expected that there would be unexplainable details and coincidences involving the murder of the most important man in the world.

Im getting off track now. To return to my question: I’m not a historian of course but I am curious how actual Cold War historians teach and present the assassination and with what context? Do historians ignore the conspiratorial claims? How do they deal with the Ur-Conspiracy theory?