Hi historians,

I’m sorry if my question is a bit broad. I’ve been watching the Netflix documentary Age of Samuri: Battle for Japan. It starts in 1551 with the rise of Oda Nobunaga and continues on for a few dozen years, I’m not at the end yet. It’s been really interesting but something threw me off. They start talking about his conquest of Kyoto and refer to it as the capital. However, they set the stage to make it seem like Japan wasn’t unified. So how was this the Capital and what power did it have? Later, they talk about someone trying to be named prime minister by the emperor and faking his lineage to be given the position. Again, they don’t really expand on what this title means or what authority it has. So, my question is as follows: when was Japan first unified under an emperor, when did the prime minister role come about, and what was the balance of power between these two roles and the provincial warlords that seem to have been allowed to declare war on each other and conquer as they saw fit?

As Brienne tried to push through his reforms to put the French state on better financial footing, he was constantly told that the Estates General would need to be called to enable the passing of such significant measures.

However, he appears to have tried to avoid that for a long time, trying different and increasingly less legally valid methods of pushing the reforms through.

What was the specific actual fear Brienne and Louis XVI had which caused them to try to avoid calling the Estates General for so long?

Was the fear that the Third Estate would take actions similar to the actions they ended up actually taking, leading to the French Revolution?

If not that fear, what was the actual fear?

And in the end, did Brienne and Louis XVI call the Estates General because they thought they would be able to control the Estates General to avoid what they feared passing?

I’m asking because I stated that Rommel was a bonafide nazi and committed war crimes in France and Italy and received this response.

————-

I’m no expert on Rommel but Rommel is anything but a Nazi. In fact, early on he starts to harbor "serious reservations" about the Nazi regime. (Blumenson, 297.) This information is also direct from the Jewish Virtual library. I’d say he was more an opportunist that took advantage of the political situation in the 1930s and made buddy buddy with the Nazis to advance his career. I mean the man straight up tore up orders to execute Senegalese POWs during the French campaign. In my opinion I don’t believe he was this uber amazing general many make him out to be but he was still pretty decent.

If Rommel really was a war criminal or die hard Nazi, historians would’ve made that fact more well known. Even now in the age of pop history, someone like Rommel is certain to pop up and no new information about him in that light has surfaced. Plus many Jewish .org sites either make no mention or directly say he didn’t do such things.

Now many people try to say he was against the Nazis directly because of the July 20th plot but that’s simply false. His role in that plot was so minor one can wonder why he’s even worth mentioning. Like I said before, I think he was more an opportunist who didn’t really like the Nazis but also didn’t really do anything to stop the Nazis either.

On another note Proske is a total clown. No real historian would ever take his claims seriously. Historians Christian Schweizer and Peter Lieb note that: "Over the last few years, even though the social science teacher Wolfgang Proske has sought to participate in the discussion [on Rommel] with very strong opinions, his biased submissions are not scientifically received."

So, this was brought up in discussion with some friends over the weekend and I was wondering if there was any truth to it.

For US tank crews in Shermans in the Pacific Theatre in WWII, their primary AT round was just regular HE, not an APHE or solid shot type like was used in the European or North African Theatres. Is this true or just a rumor/misquoted information?

So, what did the other side think of the American navy? Also, this is my first question on here so sorry if I broke some rule that I didn't see as I did read over the rules page.

There were quite a few domestic Korean communists activists, it seems like it would make more sense to promote one of them to be a leader over Kim Il Sung. Why was Sung chosen? Was it due to his reverence for Stalin?

I’m especially interested in Louis Antoine de Bougainville’s voyage around the world in which there were two ships. It seems from my reading as if officers could exchange messages and even move between the different vessels, but sources don’t mention how. Could people on one ship have alerted those on the other to an emergency on board or the need for an urgent meeting?

I recently re-watched the 2000 film Gladiator, and was reading up on how much of it was historically accurate. One thing that caught my eye in the Wikipedia article was that an early version of the script had gladiators running product endorsement ads. It claims that while this would have been historically accurate, it was removed from the film due to an expectation that audiences would not accept product placements as being historically accurate. Trying to follow the links did not turn up any primary or secondary sources.

So, did this really happen? If so, what were the ads like, and how were they presented to the audience? How much would such ads or endorsements cost relative to, say, a day's worth of food? Which industries relied on advertising? Any other info about how the roman advertising industry worked would also be appreciated.

I am a High School History/Social Sciences teacher and department chair, we are currently revising the World History (WH) curriculum and I would be interested to hear the opinions of this distinguished community on what they think are the essential parts of a WH curriculum.

Some context for those who have not been in a high school classroom for a while. Under the common core state standards social studies was essentially assigned the non-fiction work of the English department and we tried to squeeze in content where we could. The skills focus was on argumentative writing and source analysis with a push for student led inquiry. Content side we are, of course, expected to be inclusionary and diverse in content as well as perspectives. We are supposed to start around 1450,but there is some leeway, the earlier history is taught in middle school. We have about 135 in-class instructional hours with little to no expectation of work being done outside of class for non-AP classes. World History is generally taught to 10th graders (15-16 yo). A minority will go on to complete a 4 year degree, most will attend some college.

Ideas that have been floated include old school content based classes, student choice inquiry/independent study classes, History of Philosophy as a combo history/philosophy class to teach critical thinking, and area studies with a series of regional histories. As historians, what do you think should be the focus of a WH curriculum? Which concepts/themes/skills/content are essential?

EDIT: to the kind person who offered to share their dissertation info, please message me again. I accidentally declined your message request

To what degree was tamping down nationalist feelings a regular part of the central authority's top priorities before Tito's death? How significant was ethnic tension, really, in the middle part of the 20th century as part of public feelings/discourse, especially a generation or so past the times of the Utashe and the Chetniks? Why did ethnic/nationalist issues become so relevant in the 80s? If the popular narrative and Tito's central role hold any water, why did the first Yugoslav war happen in 1991 and not the early 80s?

I'm well aware of several summary executions of captured French African soldiers at this stage in the war. HOWEVER, there seems to be less scholarly research on the lives of normal, black African civilians living in occupied cities like Paris, Lyon, etc. How were these individuals treated by the German military occupation regime? I know of African and Afro-Americans like Josephine Baker living in France at the time due to its perceived liberal values with regards to racism. Were black French citizens deported to concentration camps? Have not heard anything of the sort.

Both were instances of groups of queer people rebelling against the authorities after months (or longer) of mistreatment, harassment, and arrest. Why is Stonewall seen as a pivotal point in LGBTQ history and activism, while the latter not to the same extent? Was it the difference of those few years that allowed enough change for people to feel more emboldened/feel more hope after the former?

So, I've been wondering. When did pants for men and skirts for women become a thing and why?

Naming of celestial bodies by western civilization

Why is it that all the planets and several of the moons are named after western civilization Gods? There are accounts of eastern civilization discovering them at roughy the same time but have been disregarded/forgotten by western civilization.
I have always been very curious about how many things in astronomy is predominantly and overwhelmingly western society based and very little is mentioned about the parallels with eastern society.

Hi!

I watched the first episode, I did not like it very much. I had the feeling it was heavely dramatized and perhaps the kind of documentary that indulge in inacurracies for the sake of having a more entertaining narrative. However I know nothing of this time period so I don't know what to think about it.

Is it decent on the historical level?

Thanks for you answers :)

The Battle of Yarmouk is wildly credited to be the greatest battle to ever be won by the Muslim General Khalid Ibn Al-Waleed, it is also Credited to be the Battle that allowed the Rashidun, and following Caliphates to get a permanent Foothold within the Region.

The Battle itself was an Encounter Battle, on an Open field, with two Armies, the Byzantine Army, led by the Armenian Prince Vahan, the army was said to be consisted by 140,000-200,000 men by Roman sources, Muslim Sources say they consisted of roughly 200,000 men, and Modern Estimates Put the Roman army at 100,000-150,000 men. The Muslim Army was Led by Khalid ibn Al-Waleed, with Muslim Sources putting the army at 24,000 men, and Modern Estimates putting them at 15,000-25,000 men.

The battle itself was fought on the Yarmouk Plateau, with the River Alan being at the Rear of the Byzantine Forces, and The River Harir being at the Rear of the Muslim Forces, the Lines were spread across the Battlefield were around 10 kilometres long on each side of the Battle, the Battle Lasted for roughly Six days, with sources at The Time saying between 70,000-120,000 Byzantine Men had died in the Battle, and Modern Estimates saying that 45,000-90,000 of the Byzantine Army had Died. The Muslim Army is said to have Lost between 3,000-5,000 men according to both Modern and Muslim Sources.

The Battle was Decisive Victory for the Rashidun Caliphate, and marked the Permanent Expulsion of the Byzantine Empire from Syria and the Levant.

​

With the Byzantine Army Outnumbering the Muslim Army atleast 4 to 1, and as much as 1 to 13, along with the fact that the battle was fought on Open ground, and the fact that the Byzantine Army had both Heavier Cavalry, and Better Military Equipment, just how anomalous was this Battle? And how does it compare to other Similar Battles?