When Alexander the Great took over Macedonia, his entire life agenda was conquest. He took his army very far, which I assume, left Macedonia relatively weaker. Also, weren't his war initiatives burdensome for the Macedonian economy? So with Macedonian army far away, and economy in focus of war, wouldn't Macedonian homeland be easy to conquer? Especially from the side of Greece; completely the opposite side of the war front. I would think Greek states would capitalize on the opportunity and at least attempt to conquer Macedonia.

So matchlocks and flintlocks were used at the same time. The flintlock has a lot of benefits over the matchlock. It also doesn't seem to be that much of a technological advancement or challenge to make since lots of people had flint and steel so why did everyone just not immediately switch out matchlock guns for flintlock ones?

I understand that there are exceptions where some men prefer hairy/natural women but in general, the multi-billion hair-removal industry is a reality and holds true across cultures and geographies. How and when did it start?

Not sure if this counts as NSFW or not so I will play safe here.

I know the currency value to its constituents is based on how well the gov’t fulfills its tax obligations (and the belief they will continue to do so), but how do you go from barter economy to a currency economy? Does it originally require goods-wealthy people from the government to accept the currency in exchange for goods or services, or is there threat of force paired with a centrally controlled economy that can then become a free market once widely adopted?

I went to read this post, which has 25 comments, only to find two comments that were deleted by mods and nothing else. This is far from the first time it's happened and it's only in this sub. I'm especially curious with posts that are awarded and have so many comments because clearly there's a fruitful discussion beyond the couple comments deleted.

​

I'm wondering if I'm the only one having this problem and how to fix it.

I'm wondering about this because I have read differing estimates of the count, and differing estimates of the various causes (starvation, murder, etc.). I have many books on Cambodian history, but what I believe to be the most trustworthy one (A History of Cambodia, 4th edition, by David Chandler) is probably out of date.

Also for context, what was the population of Cambodia before Lon Nol took over from Sihanouk? And do we have any idea what was it when Pol Pot took over from Lon Nol?

I'm also interested in the count of executions by motivation - e.g. how many were killed because they were Vietnamese, how many were killed because they were the wrong class, how many were killed for no reason at all, etc.

Along with Sun Zhongshan and Nguyễn Bỉnh Khiêm, he's one of three major saints of, from what I can tell, goodness. Cool.

But really and most importantly, what was Hugo's relationship to Vietnam that elevated him among practitioners of the new religion, and what was so good about him to warrant sainthood if he didn't otherwise have some connection to the region? Why him?

Sun Zhongshan is actually more clear to me, given the historical context around the establishment of Cao Đài, regardless of whether I think that was a reasonable choice or not. But the author of Les Misérables has me scratching my head, even in light of what little I know about his stances on moral issues. Nguyễn Bỉnh Khiêm seems pretty clear cut too.

Something of a two part question:

In Lion in Winter(1968), Richard tells his mother, Eleanor of Aquitaine, "You are Medea to the teeth, only this is one son you won't use for vengeance against your husband." I'm aware the film is more a dramatic thought experiment than actual history, but I've been thinking of that line:

Would an educated 12th century individual be familiar with Euripides? Would the name itself have meant anything? Would the Greek Tragedies be performed for the court or for the public?

And what about the cinema audience in 1968? You would be hard pressed now, in the 21st century, to find the average citizen with a passing knowledge of anything more than Shakespeare when it comes to dramatic history. Were the plays of Euripides widely taught or performed? I seem to remember a lot of film adaptations of Greek plays around this era so there must have been some interest, right?

Thank you so much for your time in reading this query

Hey guys, I’m starting a novel set in 14th century Germany and am beginning my research. I’d like to know about daily life, beliefs, folklore, fashion, stuff like that. I’d also like to know about social ranks, like knights and lords and such.

Are there any recommendations on books, documentaries or websites?

Thanks in advance!

I've only read Caesar's side of things but the way Pompey continuously avoids meeting or settling on a fair outcome seems odd and even foolish towards the end, what gives? How much did Caesar twist things in hes version of events?

As great as it was, it was far from the only library, and not even the only great font of knowledge to be destroyed (The House of Wisdom comes to mind, as do all the Mesoamerican codices). Yet it alone is considered the all-important keystone of human progress, whose destruction has arrested the advancement of technology almost as much as Christianity. Did it always have that reputation? Would a medieval monk or a renaissance man lament its arson and cry for the utopia that could have been had it survived?

Two questions that touch on common considerations of "Englishness" and its conquests.

I'm not a UK citizen, so my understanding of what is commonly considered the start of the English Monarchy might be wrong. But in the English histories I read/watch, people generally talk about the Norman Conquest as the real/most significant beginning of the English monarchy. Why? There were Anglo-Saxon monarchs before, and part of William the Conquerors claim to the throne was his relation to the dead King. It can't be because it was the most recent foreignly invaded Monarch, because Henry Tudor did that. So why does the history of the monarchy so often base itself around the Norman conquest?

On a related note, why do we consider the British to be "Anglo-Saxons"? Why not Britons or Celts? Or even Romans? Or Normans? Was it because the Anglo-Saxons brought the first unified culture? Since, to my understanding, the Britons and Celts didn't operate nationally but more in clans? Was it because the Anglo-Saxon invaders intermixed with the local population more than the Normans? Did many Normans even come over in the conquest or was is mostly just a Norman ruler ruling over an Anglo-Saxon people?

I have recently become aware of the website New Books Network - from here, no less! - and am somewhat dumbfounded at this sudden trove of titles, with its implication of my ignorance. I used to usually type in google about a general topic, then trawl the results for any good book recommendations. Sometimes I'll find a n interesting book reviewed by someone on Youtube, sometimes I find an interesting title browsing a bookstore. But of course the heavy academic works are not so easily found.

Thus the question. Are there other history book catalogs/collections, aside from NBN? And maybe works in other languages? I know two other languages besides English.

Oh yeah, I've also been browsing the Thursday recommendations threads; found a few promising titles there.

Did the spikes on German helmets serve a purpose or were they ceremonial? I’ve heard that they were sometimes used as an improvised weapon. Is this true?

Additionally, was WWII called such from its outbreak, or did it have other names?

I've heard from several places over the years that the global depression that started in 1929 after the Stock Market Crash is only referred to as the "Great" depression in the US, with the most common reasoning being that it lasted much longer in the US. Is this true? The most conservative estimate for when the Depression ended in the US is late 1939 (some economists and historians argue it didn't end until 1946, but they are a minority at this point).

So what is the consensus of historians in other countries of when this depression ended in their respective countries, and what do they typically call it?

I guess this is as much of a literary question as a historical one, but was this some kind of common occurance? I've mostly seen it being a rich uncle. Is this just to symbolize that these relatives prioritized their careers rather than their family? Or did this reflect an actual phenomenom?

Thanks!

I'm not sure how to frame this question exactly, but what I'm looking for is historical writing which focuses on the functional mechanics used by organizations in social movements to pursue their goals. Just the pure, day-to-day constituent activities of organizing and the organizational structures used to do them.

In typing this out I guess I'm imagining a text which collects and produces primary source documents, with comments by the author which tie them together and fill out the historical context. Like if an organization had a training program, the text would describe its content, length, and the thought behind it, with reading lists used by the org reproduced in the text; or if an organization was national but operated chapters, the text would reproduce an organizational chart (administrative positions, role descriptions etc) and describe how these functioned in practice. etc etc

I've read a few more recently published books that talk about organizing traditions in social movements, such as top-down vs community-based organizing in the civil rights movements, but their focus tends to be more ideological (why it was done that way) than functional (the day-to-day of how it was done). And the writing tends to be more narrative than descriptive in general.

This is kind of an imprecise question but if you're able to help I'd appreciate it. If there's not a field but an individual author who writes in this way, or if the writing is of this kind but not about social movements in particular, I'd be happy to hear about those as well.