Before the age of its Empire, England seemed to constantly be at war, being traded back and forth between Vikings, French invaders, and the Anglo-Saxons. They fought wars for centuries over what appears to be a tiny island with little significant value. So what made all these factions, Hardrada, William the Conqueror, Herald Godwinson, Ragnar Lothbrok and his sons, and many others launched campaigns to control a landmass with limited farmland, limited grazeland, and requires ocean trade to make up for it. What made England such a desired target?

How come these two evil brothers are not talk about today also ? They shaped American international policies forever.

How come Edward Bernays is not talking about more in mainstream media today ?

Did they see themselves as continuations of the previous empires of the same name or is that just a naming system of historians? What would they have known about them?

Hello,

I was reading up on some history of Christianity and I hope to learn a bit more about the nonbiblical sources for the life or existance of Jesus Christ. I am quite interested in finding out if the Roman state that controled that part of the world at the time ever found itself writing down any information that could help us today to better recreate the historical figure that was Jesus instead of solely relying on the Bible and the 4 Gospels.

Thank you in advance.

Given the HRE practiced elective succession, how come no other serious contenders seems to be able to wrest control of the Empire from this family? I understand they had significant personal holdings separate from the Emperorship, but how was that then leveraged into winning elections (was it just plain bribery?)

I quote:

The results of a multiple-author study by Danish, Canadian, and American scientists published in Nature in February 2016 revealed that "the first Americans, whether Clovis or earlier groups in unglaciated North America before 12.6 cal. kyr BP", are "unlikely" to "have travelled to North America from Siberia via the Bering land bridge[52] "via a corridor that opened up between the melting ice sheets in what is now Alberta and B.C. about 13,000 years ago" as many anthropologists have argued for decades.[53] The lead author, Mikkel Pedersen – a PhD student from University of Copenhagen – explained, "The ice-free corridor was long considered the principal entry route for the first Americans ... Our results reveal that it simply opened up too late for that to have been possible."[53] The scientists argued that by 10,000 years ago, the ice-free corridor in what is now Alberta and B.C "was gradually taken over by a boreal forest dominated by spruce and pine trees" and that "Clovis people likely came from the south, not the north, perhaps following wild animals such as bison."[52][53]

If they didn’t come from Siberia over the bearing strait, how did they migrate to here

I once asked Stanford historian Richard White this question and although he could note all the historical precedents, he said he didn’t know why either was originally adopted in the first place.

21 in particular seems like an odd choice when 20 is such a nice round number. It makes me think there must be a reason besides precedent.

I’ve been reading about Polynesian navigation using star houses and constellations, but I can’t imagine the sun really gives the same precise kind of information. How did they manage this while sailing during the day?

I've been reading a lot of WW2 books over the last 4 years.
Often I hear authors speak of Napoleon Bonaparte, and now I'd like to learn more about him.

Are there any short books that could introduce me to him at a basic (ish) level?

Thx

Was it still under Portuguese control? What efforts were made to maintain its neutrality? Did the Japanese attempt to occupy, blockade, or otherwise control it at any point during the war? Were Europeans or Americans in Macau interned or put into camps?

I'm reading a thing that talks about US$3 in 1902 being about US$90 today. This is what an Inflation Calculator I googled up spits out, but in context this $90 is someone's seasonal daily wage before (significant) business expenses. Inflation alone clearly doesn't capture phenomena like increases to the cost of living, economic paradigm shifts like the increased prominence of money in our transactions (especially for basic needs), and really important consumption patterns that are hard to quantify (the person in question probably got most of his food from subsistence fishing and lived in a multi-generational home on land he may or may not have formally owned).

Is there a better way to discover and communicate the value of historical currency? Is trying to capture all of these in a single number just kind of hopeless?

Hello! I'm a home-schooling parent who recently wrapped up a pretty lengthy unit about the Reconstruction Era with my middle school aged children.

My oldest asked an interesting question - how did the two parties 'switch' their views on race relations (or rather how did the Democrats ultimately become the party that is most closely aligned with social equality). I certainly wouldn't support the notion one party is morally 'superior' than the other and I teach no political party is inherently racist. However, I do understand the stereotype and would agree that there tends to be a stronger affinity between racial extremism and the Republican party (but that's a different topic altogether). That being said, I tried best to explain.

I know the Compromise of 1877 was also known as 'The Great Betrayal', and rightly so. This obviously created distrust with Black people all across the country and likely made them question their political allegiance to any party.

But what about after that? I know the New Deal certainly created some converts, but that's a pretty large historical gap. The Civil Rights movement was largely championed by Democratic presidents but, once again, another large gap.

What am I missing that can help explain the question?

Been watching a lot of 90s and movies recently and can’t help but reflect on how much the 90s was full of native Americans and references to Native American culture. Movies like Dances with Wolves, Last of the Mohicans, Free Willy, and dozens of other big movies were focused on telling Native American stories. And then all the actors from those movies all started getting cast in everything else. Just watched Die Hard with a Vengeance and one of the NYC cops is a Native American actor and I realized how “90s” that was. Natural Born Killers is maybe the most 90s movie ever and of course there’s all kinds of Native American imagery and characters.

And then TV seemed to also be doing the same thing. Recently watched Star Trek: Voyager, which had Chakotay. And I generally just remember all the random tv shows I watched during the 90s would have a Native American themed episode or character or cast member etc.

Was it just the trend at the time? Where did that clear focus on Native American characters and casting start? And why did it seem to end in the Bush era? Was there a Clinton administration executive order or policy focused on encouraging positive portrayals of natives in popular media? Or was it just that Hollywood saw that Native American stuff was making money and winning awards so everyone rushed to get on the bandwagon?

Custom paint jobs, special wheels, street races, vintage collections, and conventions are all associated with the car culture of 20th century USA. Does any of this stuff apply to modes of transportation in earlier centuries?

I've wondered how good this plane was and what it's role was in the war. It's such a strange design, and seeing how they never replicated it, am I right in assuming it wasn't very successful?

I'm not Native, so I apologize if this question is insensitive. I've been listening to a decent amount of podcasts that touch on Native American issues. A common theme of both Canadian and American First Nation narratives is how awful reservation life can be due to high crime rates, lack of jobs, lack of basic utilities, and lack of arable land or land worth mining. Its land that the governments gave the Natives after white settlers kept expanding west and determined they had no use for it.

My question is, why don't Native American communities move en masse off the reservations and into the cities, similar to how African Americans moved by the millions into Midwestern and Northeastern cities in the early 20th century to escape the racial terror and lack of jobs in the South? I understand that a single Native American family might not want to leave their community, but surely a group of Native families could move to a city and carve out an ethnic enclave similar to other small ethnic groups.

So why haven't they done so?

EDIT: Who the fuck is downvoting this post? I'm trying to educate myself.