Since Wikipedia doesn't have an answer (they don't even have king lists for all of the players), do any of you guys know the years when the various lords of the Warring States declared their independence of the Zhou kings? (i.e., the year when each ruler declared himself a 王 instead of whatever title he had before?)

I've got most of the actors, but some of them I only have their regnal dates:

• Viscount Xiong Da/Tong of Chu became King in 706, 704, or 703 BC
• The guy who became King Shoumeng of Wu reigned 585-561
• The guy who became King Goujian of Yue did it around 496, 495, 494
• The guy who became King Hui of Liang (=Wei) was 344
• Duke Yinqi became King of Qi was between 378/356 & 343/320
• The guy who became King Si of Wei/y was between 334 & 293
• The guy who became King Yi of Yan was between 332 & 321
• The guy who became King Kang of Song was 328
• Marquis Yong became King of Zhao between 326 & 299 (maybe 322?)
• The guy who became King Huiwen of Qin was 324
• Marquis Wei became King of Han in 323

(Also, if we don't have any sources in English or Chinese for the specific dates, do we have a list somewhere of the order?)

We gots dem maple trees here in Amurka too, dangit!

I know there were a few separate Norman realms but it seems like, especially in the Mediterranean, there couldn't be enough settlers to take control of Italy and Antioch and continue to fight Byzantines and Muslims.

Plus a lot of their conquering armies were pretty small.

So did they ally with anybody else or incorporate people who were not immigrants from northern France?

Was their great power and wide territories ruled, but lower population, a reason for Norman tolerance in Italy?

Anytime someone on reddit mentions communism, they immediately say that China, Russia, etc weren't communist countries and that true communism has been successful in many smaller communities.

Are there any communities/communes that have followed "true" (marxist?) communism that grew and thrived for multiple generations without incorporating capitalist principles?

I'm about 100 pages into "Don't Know Much About the Civil War" and have enjoyed the writing style, but there are times when it seems really casual and perhaps a bit biased (although this is usually when exposing hypocrisy of the justification of slave-owning). I realize this may be Davis' way of making the book more relateable to a wider audience, but it throws me off sometimes. I will be going through Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States" after I've finished this one, but wanted to know if there is any in particular I should look out for with these two authors. I always try to be a critical reader but history is something of a new interest and is pretty foreign to me since I was raised with a very biased Christian curriculum (homeschooled).

I know Orellena changed the name, but what was it called before that? Did the natives have a special name, or was it simply "river" to them?

For example - 'Anti-Machiavel' by Frederick the Great. Was he an exception or was the publication of academic works by monarchs more frequent?

I asked this in /r/askanthropology to no avail. I did a little research in my own, and it appears that the 15th century in Yemen. Can anyone validate this as true? If so, what led to the coffee bean being consumed, and by whom?

Not only on the battlefield, but off? How did Alexander the Great get his men to move the way he wanted to, when they were seperated by 300+ yards and Persian soldiers. How did Augustus Ceaser manage to figure out things such as ambushes, how did they learn about the effects of battle?

Most of all, how did they do diplomacy? How did the leaders of 2 countries communicate with each other without them dying?

Hello, can any good folk here recommend a great one-volume book on the Middle ages (ideally later: 900 - 1300 or so). I'm looking for a guide to the society, the art, the people and so on. I generally find radical / socialist views of history the best, so something slanted thatways would be great, but specifically I seek an author keen to celebrate and explain what was so good about this time (in Europe mainly, but also beyond if poss), in terms of conviviality and social freedom, while not flinching from the horrors. So far all I have read is Illich, but he has other concerns, outside straight history, and I would like to explore more. Thanks for your [passing] time.

This is something I've noticed while playing flight simulator games recently. American fighters are all prefixed F; bombers, B; attackers A. Whereas Russian fighters can be Il for Ilyushin, MiG for Mikoyan-Gurevich, and Su for Sukhoi.
It seems odd that the (once) communists would give credit to designers, while the individualists use common designations, regardless of who made the aircraft. Why is this?

I have heard a few times that a well-supplied Roman legion could destroy anything Europe had to offer until the advent of gunpowder so I was just curious.

I don't understand how this happened. I know Ludendorff suddenly requested an Armistice - and then took it back. However, his request started a sequence of events that lead to the Armistice.

Still - why surrender when your territory has not been entered and you still occupy land belonging to your enemies.

I don't get it. I don't even understand why Ludendorff requested an Armistice and Hindenburg let him.

Thanks in advance.

I took a look through the FAQ and the Master Book list, but didn't see quite what I'm looking for (though I may have missed it).

Essentially, I'm looking for accounts from soldiers, talking about what life was like where they were, especially those in the trenches. Inspired a bit by the story of the two side singing Stille Nacht/Silent Night, I'd like to learn more about both sides as well.

Thanks, Historians, for any help!

My definition of success for this question would be two things:

1: How accurate in hitting targets were they comparatively?

2: Was there ever a cost/damage estimate done for either of them?

I would also love to find out which was more successful in psychological "damage" on the military and civilians on the island.

Thanks!

Including Voortrekkers and other culturally related groups in this.

Just how many people were actually moving?