For a few examples, if Hitler never existed, would there be another right-wing extremist to take his place or could only Hitler fill that role? If Napoleon hadn't seized control of France, would another military commander have gained power in an unstable France or could only Napoleon have done so? If George Washington hadn't existed to lead the Continental Army, would another general have risen or could only Washington be the leader? If Caesar hadn't waged war against the Roman Republic, would another general have taken his place or could only Caesar seize power?

Basically I'm asking, for a given political situation, how much influence do the major powers involved actually have over the outcome? does a political situation demand certain men to rise into power or do the men themselves create the situation to gain power?

I've been reading, and was interested in how the center of civilization has shifted dramatically over the last few thousand years. In particular, regions that are currently known to be arid and relatively infertile to be host to powerful empires such as the Achaemenid Empire, the Bactria Kingdom, Carthage or the various Caliphates.

So I was wondering, how do the agricultural regions of the past compare to its present day counterparts? From Asia, the Middle-East, Europe, Africa etc.

I'm reading Donald Keene's biography of Emperor Meiji, and I can't quite find any defining events that led to the change in relationship between the shogunate and the imperial court during Komei's reign. Keene appears to suggest that the shogunate just started taking the imperial court's advice all of a sudden when Western powers began to take more notice of Japan, but it seems like the imperial court was largely ceremonial before this. What caused this sudden shift in the power balance between Emperor Komei and Tokugawa Iemochi, given the relationship that had existed for centuries prior?

I've asked this before and got some great answers but I'm looking for a bit more. The professor wants us to focus specifically on post WW2 Germany. So how art was changed after WW2 due to Hitler, the Nazi's the war itself etc.

So far for sources I have: Hitler - by Ian Kershaw (basic background of Hitler and his Art School days) Hitler and the Artists by Henry Grosshans German Art in the twentieth Century by Franz Roh

Thank you for those who have seen my past topic and helped but I still need a few more books/sources. Your responses were great but I need to focus on post WW2 Germany itself.

In the book it states as follows:

"The reason is that Newton could make all his steps, from the first elements of geometry to his own great and profound discoveries, intuitively plain and definite as regards consequence, not only to himself but to every one else. But a Homer or a Wieland cannot show how his ideas, so rich in fancy and yet so full of thought, come together in his head, simply because he does not know and therefore cannot teach others."

Wiki says:

Immanuel Kant: April 22, 1724 – February 12, 1804 Winslow Homer: February 24, 1836 – September 29, 1910 Hans Beat Wieland: June 11, 1867 – August 23, 1945

What's going on, are those dates correct or am I missing something? Is he talking about another Homer or Wieland, or did the translater improvise something here?

So I mean they mostly just converted people who were nominally Christian just did not care much about going to church, or did they really converted open skeptics who were also very interested in science like modern atheists tend to? And was it expected before these movements, like today, that religion is now on the wane forever because there is more and more skepticism, science etc. etc.?

I'm interested in the social/goverment side of Nazi Germany. Would be interested in some books to read also.

Hi everyone, is there a real quotation like this / is this a real story, and does anyone remember the specifics, origin, historical source of this story?

So goes the general arc of the tale, from my fuzzy memory (while studying Latin?), so please correct any parts that are wrong -- I recall a story about a general who conquered a city with his army, which was loyal to him, during antiquity (Greek? Roman?) and one of the local politicians (ruler, even?) was not having any of these actions, despite this general having completely and totally conquered the city, and the general's army being unquestionably loyal.

The politician and general had a verbal exchange that implied that the politician could not understand that even though this conquering general's power may not be moral or legitimate, that it may even be a moral outrage to the politician, the general's power was still unquestionably enforceable.

This general is said to have made a semi-famous expression of exasperation, sometimes quoted in political science. I believe it was something to the effect of, "But I control the armies!" or something similar -- a short, simple expression of the idea that even if his power over the city was in some abstract way illegal, immoral, or illegitimate, it was unmistakably enforceable.

Does anyone remember the original quotation, or the specifics and historical veracity of this story? Thanks a bunch.

EDIT: Thanks to Alot_Hunter and ScipioAsina. The story you're both describing is definitely the one I'm thinking of:

Alot_Hunter says:

I'm fairly certain you're referring to a story from the career of Pompey the Great, who lived more than 1,000 years after the end of the Bronze Age (the Bronze Age ended c. 1100 BC, Pompey died in 48 BC). As for the circumstances, it took place during the second civil war between Gaius Marius and Lucius Cornelius Sulla (83-80 BC). Pompey served under Sulla's command and was tasked with driving Marian forces out of Sicily, which he successfully did. When he reached the Sicilian city of Messana, the local administrators refused to recognize his authority on the grounds that they were protected by an ancient Roman Law. Pompey responded by saying, "Stop quoting laws at us. We carry swords," showing that the rule of law was useless in the face of rule enforced by an army.

ScipioAsina:

A vaguely similar story appears in Plutarch's biography of Pompey the Great (Gn. Pompeius Magnus): ...[M.] Perpenna [Vento] immediately abandoned Sicily to him [Pompey], and he [Pompey] retook its cities, which had been abused [by Perpenna], and treated them all benevolently except for the Mamertines in Messana, who pleaded against his tribunal and jurisdiction on account of an ancient law of the Romans. He said in response: "Will you not stop mentioning laws to us who are girded with swords?" (10.2) The Penguin edition gives a more elegant translation of Pompey's reply (οὐ παύσεσθε ἡμῖν ὑπεζωσμένοις ξίφη νόμους ἀναγινώσκοντες;): "Stop quoting the laws to us. We carry swords."

Now, I'm not sure if this is the story you had in mind, since there's very little context to it; Plutarch says nothing more about incident. But it seems unlikely that these were same Mamertines from the time of the First Punic War. I hope you find this helpful! :)

If my Chinese history class has taught me one thing it's that eunuchs have played a large role in Chinese history since before the Xai dynasty. So I had to wonder why did the practice of eunuchs never rise to that extent or stay around as long in the rest. I know Babylon along with the byzantine and roman empires practiced it to an extent but nothing to the numbers of the Chinese. My only guess would be the rise of Christianity having something to do with it

How popular were Southwest Asian religions that existed between Jesus' and Mohammad's lives?

I've specifically read up on Manichaeism and Mazdakism, but I'd like to learn about other religions during this time period as well.

While in a museum of ancient Greek artifacts today, I thought that no one who made these things would have ever known that they would be in a museum, because they would never have even had the concept of a museum. Or would they? It's sort of a "meta" question to have in this subreddit, I suppose, but how for how long have we been studying the history of societies before ours and doing things like putting their artifacts in museums?

I believe it was used as a garrote at times, but was it used in other nonconventional ways?

I ask because my grandfather served in the European Theatre during this time but rarely spoke of it. However, I vaguely remember a story I was told involving piano wire. What little I remember, he was riding atop a tank through an urban area. The tank was coming to a stop, but, as it was doing so, a piece piano wire strung between two buildings began to dig into my grandfather's neck. I was told that had the tank been moving with some speed he would have been severly injured.

He passed away when I was young, so I'm not if this was something he told me, if it was a story embellished by a family member, or just something I misheard as a child. Any clarification on this would be greatly appreciated!

*And afterwards, such as dealing with Pagans, the conflicts and how my life would change.

The sunken ship in South Korea has had me wondering where the concept that the captain must go down with the ship came from. In this case, the captain got off the ship while many passengers died/missing.

Is this an unwritten rule based on honor? Where did it originate? What is the stigma attached to not going down with the ship? Will this captain ever get another job?

Ive been reading "Guns, Germs, and Steel." It seems as though he's very well read on what he talks about, but I saw that he's a physiologist and it seems like a lot of wjat he says is theorizing, which would only make sense if he were a historian/archeologist

What I'm asking is how did Europe continue warring so shortly after a war that was as devastating as the Thirty Years War was for Europe. The 30YW ravaged Europe in a very dramatic way, with large swathes of Europe being laid low, and many considering it one of the most destructive European wars in history (shamelessly taken from Wikipedia, though I've heard the same claims from former history profs). For example, literally the same year that the Peace of Westphalia brought an end to the Thirty Years War, Sweden would begin its invasion of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which is crazy given that Sweden was one of the major players in the 30 Years War (Granted, war didn't ever reach their doorstep as far as I understand).