Bringing some thinkers to enlighten us:

• Aristotle: 4th century BC, Ancient Greece - classical meaning of the word democracy?
• Cicero: 1st century BC, Ancient Rome - meaning?
• Thomas Aquinas: 13th century, High Middle Ages - Aristotlean meaning?
• Niccolò Machiavelli: 16th century, Renaissance - ?
• Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Montesquieu: 17th-18th century, Modern Age - ?
• Alexis de Tocqueville: 19th century, post-French Revolution - Contemporary meaning already?

I am interested on the topic because I read that the Founding Fathers understood their system as a Representative Republic but not a democracy, they understood the word democracy as we understand direct democracy nowadays, it was a negative word seen as something close to "anarchy". That is, what we understand by the word representative democracy they understood by the word representative republic [I don't know how much of this is accurate either].

When and how the meaning of the word democracy changed?

I understand the ethnic reasons behind Alsace-Lorraine, Schleswig, and Posen, but I can’t seem to find many reasons other than “it just was.” If I understand correctly, that region was (as still is) predominantly populated by Germans?

Iwo Jima was an incredibly blood battle. However at this point in the war, Japan had a shortage of men, equipment, food, and their navy was basically destroyed. With all of that, why didn't the US Navy just surround the island, plant mines, etc. and wait until the Japanese on the island starved? I feel like that would have been easy and would have greatly reduced American casualties. The island is small so it seems like it would have been a very feasible idea.

Hello all!

I was wondering if any of you could settle a query that's been gnawing at me, ever since I (presumably) read about it!

It's about a Japanese family/clan during the Tokugawa era which would meet every year. At each of these meetings, the younger retainers would ask "Is now the time?" as in 'Was it now time to overthrow the Tokugawa Shogunate?'. And each time the clan elders/leaders would reply "No, not this year. Wait a further year until we are stronger". And that response never wavered

I'm sure that I've come across this information in a book somewhere, but for the life of me I can't find any reference to it online!

Would anyone know if this story is correct or not? If it is correct, which clan was famous for these annual meetings where the overthrow of the Tokugawa was voiced in such a public way?

Many thanks!

I wonder all the time whether or not if Greeks literally believed in their gods and myth or not. A lot of Christians do not literally believe in the events of the Bible as historical (while some do). Is that comparable to the general attitude in Ancient Greece, with there being individual cults that literally believe in their god/diety? Is there any way we could reasonable assume to know?

I like the think that in the far future, after American culture as it is doesn't exist, people would discover our love for say, Batman, and think that we worshipped him as some kind of protector, and that the comics and films are our cultural myths.

Thank you so much!

When conflicts between ruling powers came to an end, they were often settled by the signing of a treaty. As part of this, it was common that geopolitical boundaries changed, and in some case control of specific cities. Assuming a large chunk of the population of a given city (say, businessmen or artisans) was not directly involved in active conflict, which would in any case have ceased by now, how would their life have changed in the aftermath of a treaty being signed?

Example: Say I'm French and I live in a part of Canada that's changed hands from the French to the British after the Treaty of Paris in 1763, and I'm mostly minding my own business and getting on with my job. Do I go back to France, or to the nearest French-controlled territory? Or do I just get on with things and work with the new administration? Are British people hostile towards me just because I'm French? Do I need to learn English now?

As title says what is reason we call Russian emperors "tsars" in English? Same could be said for Ottomans - we call Ottoman state "Ottoman Empire" (not Sultanate), but yet their rulers "sultans" (as they called themselves). German "kaisers" are also interesting - we call emperors of HRE, or emperors of Austria/Austro-Hungary just "emperor", yet for rulers of German Empire we often use "kaiser".

What is a reason that for some states we adopted original terminology, and for some did not?

Hello everyone,

I tried to search on this sub for history books about this subject but most suggestions seem to be more like novels or books written by journalists.

I'm looking for a book about the historical background behind why the Yugoslav wars happened and what lead to Yugoslavia breaking up. I would appreciate if the book approaches the subject from a neutral (or all partipants') point of view.

Any suggestions or comments would be very welcome.

It feels like a pointlessly complicated rule.

​

And if they didn't, then why did the people of the Roman era believe the story of the nativity?

I ask this question knowing full well that the term "PTSD" or even "shell shock" would not be coined for decades to come, but are there any document that describe symptoms of PTSD (agitation, irritability, hostility, hypervigilance, self-destructive behavior, or social isolation, flashback, fear, severe anxiety, or mistrust, loss of interest or pleasure in activities, guilt, loneliness, insomnia or nightmares, emotional detachment or unwanted thoughts) in newly freed former slaves following the Civil War?

From the Han dynasty and beyond, China seems to be relatively unified, with 1 emperor ruling all of China during most of its history aside from some civil wars.

Meanwhile, Europe post-Rome had been fractured into many tiny realms, with maybe some exceptions being Charlemagne's Frankish Empire or the Holy Roman Empire, though neither of these came as close to hegemony over Europe as Chinese dynasties did over China.

Is there something I am missing? Otherwise, what is the reason for China's unification compared to Europe's division?

I understand during winter and autumn/spring months it would have been normal to wear more clothing and the temperature would have been bearable, but I can’t understand how men wore full suits with ties in the summer and women wore full dresses. Wouldn’t they have been boiling under these garments and continually sweating? If you look at photos of summer now and back then you will see how modern day people are content wearing just a t-shirt and shorts and in the same environment 70 years ago they were wearing everything.

as the saying goes “The Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy nor Roman, nor an Empire.”

What I'm most curious about, is why did central European powers embrace/become the Holy roman empire after so famously resisting roman conquest and dominion?

Did they view themselves as a continuation of roman imperialism and rule? In other words did they think of themselves as romans ruling over a foreign land? Or a foreign land controlling the legacy of rome?

Was the actual roman empire viewed as a good entity? What did they think of their legacy of resisting rome? Is their accounts of them disowning people like Arminius?

Did they view themselves as romans?

Was their a shift in sentiment? When did central european powers become positive or envious of rome rather then seeing them as a foreign conquering power? Was it due to the spread of christianity? Or centralization of power in central europe and rulers seeking a title that bestowed them a right of rulership and dominion?

this is a big question I know. so feel free to ask if you have any questions about what I am asking.