Like, best case scenario, a soldier in that war could come out with only minor hearing loss. How could the Germans justify hatred of anyone who was not in a great physical shape, with no disability, with troops wounded in war?

I noticed that a lot of the stereotypes and offensive caricatures when portraying Native Americans usually originate from the culture of the Plains Indians (regardless of whether they are in the great plains or not). The use of a War bonnet being a significant status symbol within Plains Indian nations, the tipi being a Lakota word for "dwelling" and mostly used by inhabitants within the Great Plains and the phrase 'How' deriving from the Lakota word 'háu'. Why are so many Native American stereotypes so focused on this region of America? Especially given the fact that the more formative years of European-Native American contact was between nations in the Eastern United States, Caribbean and Mesoamerican, like the Cherokee, Wampanoag and Nahua.

What happened to Henry II after he ordered Thomas Becket killed? People in the Middle Ages were incredibly religious. It seems like spilling blood in the house of god and killing a high ranking religious figure would’ve came with huge political consequences. People were excommunicated for less back then. Was Henry excommunicated too? What happened to him and what did the political climate look like following Becket’s death?

I'm not sure if that fits into the existing weekly or monthly features, but I think it would be interesting to hear from experts about the new releases periodically.

I have taken a new interest in studying ancient Rome in my spare time (and with the pandemic, there is a lot) and I am having trouble figuring out what was Julius Ceasar's social background and status? I also wonder what kind of career could he reasonably expect to have in the Roman Republic of his day? What kinds of virtues, characteristics, and achievements would other Romans expect him to have? If there are any books that shed some insight on those subjects recommendations would be much appreciated.

I feel like Italian military history to the general populous is relegated to the might of the Roman military and the notable failures of the modern unified Italian military, however medieval and Renaissance Italy is an era I am very fascinated in and learning about and I am completely aware that the city states were for a large part either puppets of foreign nations or fielded mercenaries in their stead.

What I cannot find much about however is the size of these militaries, how many men could Florence field? Or Genoa? How big was the Venetian fleet? What was the military capabilities of Naples (I am aware it was under Spanish rule but the question remains)

If anyone knows anything on this directly or could reference me to some good sources or even do both it would be greatly appreciated, thanks!

Friend is running a call of Cthulhu game set outside of Cairo in the 20s, and is looking for what the gun laws were like. Thanks in advance <3

In 1979, the al-Haram Mosque in Mecca was besieged by violent religious extremists whose goal was to overthrow the allegedly Westernized house of Saud and replace it with an Islamic theocracy of their own design. From then on, Islamist terrorism became a major feature of regional politics spearheaded first by Shia militants (Hezbollah, IJO) during the Lebanese civil war, then Sunni militants (Hamas, PIJ) during the Intifada, and finally Salafi militants (al-Qaeda, ISIL) with transnational campaigns.

There are very few documented cases of large-scale Islamist-inspired terrorist activity before the '80s. Why is that? Why did it emerge in that particular decade? How is this phenomenon related to developments such as the fall of the Soviet Union, the decline of secular Arab nationalism, US & Israeli foreign policy and Saudi sponsorship of Wahhabism?

Hello, I am from Abensberg in Niederbayern, the sight of an important battle in the 5th coalition war and quite nearby to Landshut, Eggmühl, Teugn and Hausen and Regensburg. In addition my grandparents live in Kelheim and throughout my life has taken me many times to the Befreiungshalle which is considered by he and I to be the most one of the important monument in Bavaria, comparable to Walhalla in Donaustrauf and in all of Germany along with the Hermannsdenkmal in Detmold and a few others. I am saying this to make the point that the Napoleonic Wars have always been a part of my life, and there is also the fact that my grandmother's ur-grandfather was a heroic who died as a cavalryman at the Battle of Wörth during the 1870-71 war against France, we still have his sword and armour as a heavy cavalry rider and it is displayed at our home. As for Napoleon himself, to me I have always seen him as very much like Julius Caesar, a genius who might once have been good intentioned but also an enemy of Germany and because of his over ambition the benefit he brought to his people in his time came with high cost later.

Anyhow, today at school a teacher of mine said an interesting thing, that both Napoleon and Napoleon III should be called German national heroes. He said that destroying the alte Reich and creating the Rheinbund was what created a German identity and that Napoleon making Austria weak so that Prussia could become the most powerful German state was necessary for a united Germany, because Austria was an old fashioned empire with a majority of people not being German and was on the edge of Germany but Prussia was a modern and totally German kingdom. Also, he said that French war in 1870 convinced the other German states that it was better to accept some domination by their fellow Germans in Prussia than dominations by France and this is what allowed the Kaiserreich to be made at Versailles.

My perspectives are perhaps different, it seems obvious that German identity was much older than Napoleon. The alte Reich gave up on Italy and places outside of Germany early on, took the name of Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation, and I think that the fact of the Augsburger and Westfalisch settlements speaks to a German identity, the empire was not the new Rome of Karl der Große's dreams and it was not a Catholic state either, the Protestant states had no reason to accept a Catholic emperor and the emperor to accept Protestant states if they did not have a shared identity that was not sectarian. So I would say that Napoleon didn't not help create German identity or unity, he created Kleindeutschland and destroyed 1000 years of German unity. It also seems that this idea of the French war of 1870 gives too many credits to Napoleon III, he was delusional and desperate and it was obvious to all of Europe including the French that they could not win the war and Bismarck used this at the fact that after Königgrätz many German states were annexed by Prussia to give the other German states a choice between Prussian domination as part of a new German Empire or to be abolished in the way that Hannover was. Finally I think that it is wrong to say that Prussia was more German than Austria, neither were originally Stammesherzogtum and Prussia itself was originally part of Poland, with most Prussians being Germanized Wends and ancestors of migrants from the Ostsiedlung. Also the idea that Prussia was more modern is to me somewhat determinist, like the awful Sonderweg idea it has the implication that there is a proper way for a state to develop and that way is a bureaucratic state in the mold of France and Britain.

Also this might not be relevant but this teacher is not Bavarian, he comes from Potsdam and so this might give him a bias

Sorry if the post is too broad a question, I realise that both countries were vastly different 40 years apart however it just seems like if they wanted the falklands so bad, there was such a better opportunity during the war given how thinly spread the royal navy was and argentinas relationship with European powers at the time. Not necessarily expecting an answer here but if anyone could help me to understand this I would appreciate it. Thanks!

I'm reading the final chapter of the Return of A King from William Dalrymple, a book on the first English - Afghan war. There were several mentions of the Opium Wars with some significant implications on the decisions in Afghanistan.

​

Does anyone have any good book recommendations about the wars that are perhaps aimed at non-historians (in other words, easier to read)?

Any books you would recommend for learning about the Parthian Empire, preferably sources without a pro-Roman or anti-Persian view?

​

Thank you in advance!

​

Edit: sorry about the Roma in the title

I know agriculture in those times was extremely variable, but let us say that the country in question is France and there are no droughts or other factors that can affect agriculture. How much land would be needed one peasant in a good year?

I recently heard a piece of trivia that Germany had not paid the debts incurred from its defeat in WWI until very recently in 2014. However, that raises an obvious problem: Germany was 2 different countries during the Cold War, and was then reunified a couple decades afterward. Did they split the bill, or was there a different solution?