I saw a post today about the last samurai and someone laid down some history on who it was loosely based on. It got me thinking about their gear and how they really fought. Did the samurai really fight in those really cool armors they have and how did they do combat. I know that Hollywood exaggerates on how battles were really fought. Can anyone point me in the right direction

Why did they attack Peal Harbor instead of say, Paris or Saint Petersburg? The US weren't participating in WW2 yet, so why attack a small threat?

Title Question

I’ve heard from a Chinese communist perspective that Mao viewed the CPSU as corrupted and that was the impetus for the split from their end. But why did Mao’s view on the CPSU only change after Stalin’s death? Was it just their personal relationship or was their specific actions taken by the CPSU after Stalin’s death that changed Mao’s mind?

Similarly, why do modern MLs dislike Khrushchev?

As far as I understand, the classical interpretation of the othismos in hoplite warfare is that the term is a literal translation, that hoplites would "push" against one another with each man recieving support from the man behind him and so on. It's also my understanding that one piece of evidence for this interpretation was that it was common wisdom amongst greek military leaders at the time, that more ranks meant a stronger phalanx. This make sense because more ranks means more people pushing means force to bowl over the other team.

Now I've seen estimates that, at least at one point in hoplite warfare, 10-12 ranks would be a "usual" number. If I imagine 11 burly greek dudes behind me, pushing with all their force, and 12 burly greek dudes in front of me, doing likewise, my first thought is that I would immediately be crushed to death. In fact, I feel like the first 2-3 ranks of each side would be in the same predicament.

Surely you would think there would be some acknowledgment of this if it were true. If the first few ranks of each side in a battle were condemed to certain death by crushing, then wouldn't someone have mentioned it? Wouldn't armies have to adapt to the problems this causes? (Essentially having to find a large group of suicidal men). I can't find much on who made up the first rank of a phalanx, but I have seen suggestions that it was often the best soldiers a city could muster, it would make no sense to place them in a position were they were immediately killed?

His place of birth was in the Pale of Settlement, but he did not live in a shtetl, the Bronsteins apparently owned quite a bit of land in the Kherson governorate and had tenants who were Jews and Gentiles, they spoke Russian rather than Yiddish at home and were apparently considered part of the high society of their community along with other local landowners and petty nobles. He was sent to Odessa and educated at a German language boarding school from the time that he was 8 years old, and was apparently classmates with the sons of many wealthy families from around Southern Russia. I was under the impression that Jews in the Russian Empire were stuck in the Pale of Settlement, barred from certain professions, large cities and educational institutions, taxed heavily, were at constant risk of losing everything including their lives and families to pogroms and subject to conscription often for as long as 25 years pretty much at random, yet the young Lev Bronstein led a life of considerable privilege in comparison to the vast majority of people in the Russian Empire.

Is the information that I have regarding the life, status and opportunities afforded to Jews in the Russian Empire incorrect, or was the Bronstein family given some kind of exception? How did they get such an exception?

I’m vaguely aware of things such as a potential alliance or at least cooperation between the colony and the French, as well as the White House being burned, but I think I’ve only really heard from rather biased sources. Was it really as simple as ‘they could have obliterated them but they were a piffling little colony not worth bothering about then’?

I live in the southern United States. I’m not sure how familiar the AskHistorians community is with the popular sentiments of the rural folk here concerning the Civil War, but it’s basically one long badhistory thread writ large and played out irl.

I’ve heard it all, from the popular “states’ rights” argument to the more obscure and far-fetched (and quite obviously propaganda/misinformation-fueled) appeals to southern chivalry and defense against culture decay.

The biggest disconnect I’ve encountered, both as a student and as a private citizen, is how either side of the aisle gives a different, sweeping statement regarding southern military power. White supremacists and victims of revisionist propaganda tend to suggest that the South was militarily superior but lost due to a myriad of innane excuses and vague references to “logistics.” At the same time, non-apologists suggest that victory was inevitable but merely delayed by surprise victories early on in the war.

So, given that history very very rarely boils down to such reductionist explanations, what is the truth behind this? Did the South stand a chance? Did the North ever stand to lose?

Edit: Interestingly enough, I’ve received two contradictory answers that both sound plausible! The very phenomenon I just described has played out among historians here in a more thought-out manner.

Obviously there was no usage of dates based around the birth of Christ before it occurred. Therefore how were years measured before this point and in non-Christian areas of the world?

In Truth and Method, written in 1960 by the philosopher Gadamer, there's a one off line where he mentions that still in the 18th Century, people often described the Alpine landscape as ugly.

He doesn't cite anything or give any further details about that, so I'm wondering if anyone has any knowledge of how the Alps were viewed or on what he might be basing that line.

During the cold war spy fiction was very popular, with works from writers like Ian Fleming and John le Carré, I was wondering if this was the case with the USSR? Was there ever a Soviet James bond or George Smiley? If not why were these kind of novels ( or movies) not popular in the USSR?

I am interested in how the agricultural system would function in classical Sparta. The Spartiate population use my produce to enable their lifestyle, what produce am I left with to support my family?

Would it be possible to have a decent family life (in terms of reliable amounts of food and security)?

Along these lines, how would my agricultural techniques have differed from farmers in other regions at the time?

Can someone explain to me what the tunnel rats did or what happened to them or even what they encountered I've been wondering about the Vietnam War for days and can't find any answers so I thought I would ask here. Were these people forced into this role or did they volunteer to do it? What was in those tunnels they explored and why did they explore them?

I know this is a subject of huge debate but im looking for a safe consensus-driven answer i can use as a layman

Obviously there were Hunter-gatherers and agriculturalists on both continents, but with the exception of the Mississippi valley I can’t think of a large, city-building culture from North America that rivals the Aztecs and Incas. Also, metallurgy was pretty advanced in South America while practically nonexistent beyond bronze in North America. I would think the deserts, jungles and mountains that make up much of South America would hinder a society’s ability to advance.

This question comes from watching Peaky Blinders, which is set in 1920s England - where everyone, but particularly the men, seems obsessed with each other's war service and record - whether they served in uniform, what their arm or service was, which major battles they saw and whether they were decorated, in particular.

In the show's timeline, this seems to run to at least the end of the decade, where it's still enough of 'A Thing' that there can be major friction at a wedding because one family served in the cavalry, while the other half were in the infantry - and that several of the former only agreed to come because the groom was highly decorated.

It doesn't seem to chime with the general impression or stereotype of the veterans who never talked about the war or their service - these people talk about it all the time. How closely based is this in reality?

Hey,

For an essay I have to analyse the ways in which authors of 2 different sources represent social and political problems in Berlin, Germany. One of those is Brecht's film 'Kuhle Wampe' (1932) about left-wing politics, unemployment and homelessness in the final years of Weimar Republic.

He criticises (what I have been told by my teacher, who won't offer any help) the 'petit bourgeois mentality' of the family the film focuses on. This involves the characters in the film not blaming the State for their poverty/unemployment/homelessness, fantasizing over what they read in newspapers (prositutes who earn a lot per night from rich men), society acting indifferent to an unemployed young adult who commits suicide.

However, I don't understand what petit bourgeois actually means? Where did it come from? How does it relate to problems during Weimar Republic era?

Feel free to link me to any academic papers (so I can reference them) and/or I would appreciate an explanation