With the exception of the United States, the British population in most of their colonies remained loyal to the crown throughout the empire's existence. At the very least, they didn't take up arms against the crown like in the US and mostly demanded independence via political procedures. This should not be seen as given simply because they saw themselves as British or British-ethnic in the country they lived in.

So let's take an example:

Akbar was considered the greatest of the Mughal Emperors. Still, he also had to deal with many rebellions. These included not only the locals in territories he conquered (Sur Empire remnants and Rajput clans) but also his own relatives and generals, including Bairam Khan who was his former mentor.

The British took Bengal after the Battle of Plassey and gained legitimate control of it after the Battle of Buxar. So what kept Robert Clive and Warren Hasting from declaring themselves Sultan or King of Bengal and splitting from the British Crown? Bengal had more population than entire Britain at that point.

It feels like this has always made the Cuban Missile Crisis seem like such a win for JFK and the US, especially as the removal was delayed. Why did they agree to this? I tried researching this without satisfying results. Hoping you all can help!

I know liquor was a major contributing factor in the demise of many native communities, did they not have any exposure to it prior? I thought pretty much all civilizations had it in some form. Why was it so devastating?

I hear stories about crews mutinying against their captains in the age of sail, and even some moving into the 20th century. But haven't heard about anything recently. On the military side of things most navies had marine complements to protect the ship's officers, but that fell out of favor. The U.S. Navy, for example, stopped having marines permanently stationed their ships somewhere around Vietnam. What caused this shift?

Currently assembling my LitReview and looking for peer reviewed articles which could help inform my research. The paper itself is due the first week in December.

So any writing on that topic specifically (which there doesn't seem to be a lot of) or anything that speaks to some part of the topic would be very much appreciated.

I intend to pull a lot of pieces together to set the scene such as post WW II American history, the evolution of Pop Culture and counterculture into and through the 60s and 70s, what Camp is and how it's presented and received. Specifically I will be calling out 1972 when Pink Flamingos came out the same year that The Partridge Family, The Carol Burnett Show and The Sony and Cher Show were all performing different brands of camp. It looks like I'll be spending a lot of time focusing on Laugh-In and The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour.

I've gone through Susan Sontag's "Notes on Camp" and am currently reading "After Aquarius Dawned : How the Revolutions of the Sixties Became the Popular Culture of the Seventies" by Judy Kutulas and any further suggestions would be great. Thanks in advance!

“Did Asia and Africa have their own Renaissances and historians just don't term it as such?” I’ve seen this on an older Reddit post that went unanswered & was wondering the same exact thing. There’s so many periods in European history that we marvel at the art and literature of that time—so it got me wondering about other parts of the world.

I always see Heer troops/SS/Paratroopers but never Luftwaffe/nonaviation troops in pictures or documentaries?

Frequently in discussions about the Atlantic Slave Trade on Reddit, you see someone argue that the 'Muslim slave trade' was worse/that there's a conspiracy in burying the 'Muslim slave trade' to make Europeans look bad.

But I've always wondered to what degree the slave trade in the Black Sea or eastern Mediterranean was actually 'Muslim' and whether Christians also took part. I have read mention of Armenian merchants that were selling Christian slave girls in Mughal Delhi, so I would guess Armenian merchants also operated as middle men inside the Ottoman empire, but I would like to know for certain.

I've tried asking this question before but got no response!

So for some context, I'm writing a semi-fantasy short-story set in roughly 300 bc in ancient greece, and there is a moment where an emperor thinks he is being deposed, and he references the rise of the athenian democracy, and brutus of rome. Except that brutus of rome was some hundreds of years after this story is supposed to be set, so I just realised I needed another.

I've done a bit of searching, but I'm not sure what would be the most well-known in the context of the time, if anyone could point me in the right direction? The kind of overthrowing that would be well-known to anyone in the era?

PS: My first time posting so please let me know if I did something wrong. Thanks in advance amazing people!

Writer planning a period piece here. I am aware of fairly widespread discrimination against other Celtic groups such as the Irish at the time, and I was wondering if the Manx faced similar hardship.

In reading about the requirements of the hajj, I was wondering how such a thing was done before the era of planes or automobiles that made getting from one faraway place to another relatively quick. This gave me a couple questions.

1. How did people that didn't live close to Mecca make their pilgrimage in any reasonable amount of time? Based on a quick google, travelling on foot from eastern Iran would take nearly 3 months which seems an absurd amount of time to put your life on pause and also would need to be timed well to arrive on time. Were people that lived that far out just not expected to make the journey or is there something I am missing?

2. How could kingdoms and nations with a majority Muslim population afford for so many people to cease laboring and take a trip all at once? I understand that the infirmed and poor were not expected to have to do it, but that would still leave a majority of the working population it seems. How did these economies withstand such a thing?

Especially in the east part of the continent. If you wander the street of any of the 4 major Canadian cities on the east coast, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal and Quebec City, you could easily see medieval gothic style architecture everywhere. Just look at White House and the Capitol vs Canadian Parlement, Old US universities like Harvard, Princeton vs Old Canadian universities like McGill, U of Toronto…you can easily see the difference in architecture style. Is there any historical context that could explain this deviation in building styles across boarder?

It seems to me to be quite ridiculous and a “creative” twist on history to to heighten the stakes at the end of the film. But I could be wrong…

I’ve heard this many times but can’t find much evidence. What evidence is there, and how did this come to be a common belief?

I'm gonna put this question in this sub, because right now in India there are a lot of claims made by people trying to declare mythology as history. And I'm wondering how would you define Mythology and History. For Hindu Nationalists, one of their claims that their mythology is actual Indian History is that because Ramayana and Mahabharata is called Itihasa -- which literally translates to meaning History -- that it has to be actual history and everything said in those text to be facts. How would you guys counter this?

P.S please try to keep it respectful as possible to the religion and whatnot.

I'm reading The Count of Monte Cristo, and on chapter 89 (or 11 of the 4th tome), Monte Cristo says:

[...] In France people fight with the sword or pistol, in the colonies with the carbine, in Arabia with the dagger.

Were people duelling with rifles in the US in the 1800's?

Was it out of "german professionalism" , for bureaucratic reasons or something else altogether?

I apologize if this is the wrong place to ask, but I'm reading City of God and I get the impression that Saint Augustine believes that the gods the Greeks and Romans worshipped were actual fallen angles and demons while at the same time acknowledging that some mythic stories (like that of Romulus) are just fictions.

I know that today there are religious people who view the events outlined in the Abrahamic books as literal and that if you reverse times arrow that belief increases dramatically.

This all made me wonder when myth started to separate from history and what allowed for that trend.

What technologies and process were used to create a significant enough number of coins to be used as a currency?