I’ve heard people float the idea that medieval Europe wasn’t as terrible as its made out to be, at least in comparison to what most of the world was like, and that the idea of a terrible Dark Age was promoted by Renaissance writers and thinkers looking to exalt their own time.

I’m not a historian though, and while the history of Europe that I’ve studied paints a pretty bleak picture of medieval Europe, I’m not sure how much of that is based on a proper historical interpretation. The history that I’ve been taught has been wrong before, so I’d like to get a few second opinions

I can understand all the other former Soviet countries splitting up and emerging as independant countries, but how did Russia form a new government in (as far as I know) a very different political system, immediatly after collapsing?

How did it happen? Did someone just look at the former soviet union and go... "Welp, better make a government" and everyone just... accepted it?

What was the legitimacy of this new government?

I realize that my main question might be a false assumption, and if so, telling me that would also answer my question. I just always grown up being told that December 7th was the reason why the US got involved. Despite that, the US forces in Europe drastically outnumbered the troops in the pacific. If I remember correctly, fewer troops were sent to the pacific than had died in europe.

That just seemed odd to me, given the "moral justification" for entering the war.

Authoritarian regimes always have incompetent militaries because personal loyalties are more important to a dictator than competence, while militaries of democracies have very competent militaries because personal loyalties don’t matter.

With this knowledge why did Nazi Germany achieve much military success against democratic armies like the British and French in 1939 and ‘40 despite recently undergoing a purge and why did it initially see much success against an equally purged army like the Red Army in 1941 and ‘42?

Until recently I didn’t know the Louisiana Purchase extended into parts of Canada, including the town where I used to live. What exactly defined the northern borderline of the LP and is there a very detailed map anywhere showing this?

Events like the Nanjing Massacre, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the Haloucaust are enough to make me doubt any optimism I have about the world (and that's just from one war!). How can someone burdened by this knowledge find any happiness?

So you all know how during the Vietnam War there were people protesting it saying essentially, poor people fighting a rich man’s war? Was there anything like this in the South during or after the civil war since the majority of the people at the top in the CSA government and society were wealthy slave owners?

I recently found out that tomatoes are native to the Americas and were brought to Europe by the Spanish (or the jesuits). Today tomatoes are ubiquitous in Spanish and Italian cuisine. What was "typical" Spanish/Italian food prior to the introduction of the tomatoe and how did the tomatoe come to dominate these cuisines in such a short time. Did it replace local ingredients or was it added onto existing recipes?

From what I can tell. it goes something like. Germans -> cool churches -> spooky books -> rockin music, but I was hoping someone could shed a bit more light

How many sections were there?

I'm watching HBO's Rome and simultaneously reading up a bit on Octavian and Mark Antony, both of whom I find fascinating. While this series dramatizes many of the events, it also skips a lot of the events that motivate some of the major historic points. In this sense I'm having difficulty finding information about how Octavian could go from being an enemy of Mark Antony, defeating him and being able to use enough coercion with his armies to be named Consul, but then his armies are apparently too small and he has to leave Rome and make peace with Antony, leading to the second triumvirate. Can someone provide a little context as to how this happen and how this two people were able to seal peace barely a year after being enemies?

I was reading about the way in which the Romans co-opted local gods into the own pantheon. For instance with Mars Mullo and Mars Camulus in Gaul, who were originally major indigenous gods that became worshiped across the Empire as manifestations of the Roman God Mars.

I assume there were attempts to do the same with Jesus, and I know the Romans originally tried to convince the Jews that they were worshiping a version of Jupiter, but I’ve never seen an example of where it succeeded even on a local level.

Can anyone tell me more?

I’m aware that marriage among royalty in the Medieval period (and on either side of it) was used primarily as a means of solidifying power, and as such children were married to each other or to much older or younger individuals, but assuming they were of-age for the time or older before they were married, would it have been common for male heirs to enter a marriage with their virginity?

I know it would be notoriously difficult to keep a record of such things but I’m hoping there are some kinds of records of general consensus on the subject, whether among the lower or upper classes of the time. How would this be viewed by the general population of 15th century England?

during the 7 year war there was fighting on all inhabited continents except Australia/Oceania, and numerous countries were involved. why is this not considered a world war in the same way as WWI or WWII?

Basically every other piece of US public safety legislation seems to have been hugely controversial, engendering significant resistance from politicians, cops vowing not to enforce it, and a large percentage of the population refusing to comply. Why did everyone agree to wear a seatbelt when that can similarly be seen as the government infringing on people’s liberties?

I don't want to ascribe any value to Renaissance paintings over other styles of paintings. But up until that point paintings had been more representational. Perhaps faces were rendered with a lot of detail, but weren't drastically shaded, or animals were in detail, or it was most entirely representational (thinking of: Egyptian, Roman, Greek, Medieval English, Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Medieval Arabic, Byzantine). It might be my lack of exposure to photo-real-ish art from the pre-Renaissance time period, but it seems to me that there was quite the shift in painting styles in Europe during that time that did not occur prior to that time or in other cultures around the world. Curious if there was some reason behind that style change.

Lately I’ve been really interested in how hunter gathers lived. Fueled by the somewhat new paradigm that the Neolithic revolution wasn’t unarguably a good path for man’s wellbeing, I’ve been wondering: how did these people actually live. On day to day basis, what did they do in their free time, what can be said at how they looked upon live, etc, etc?

I’ve been Googleing quite a bit, but can’t find a standard reference work on this subject that is properly reviewed. So my question is if someone can point me in the direction of (preferably well-written) info/books on the subject.

When reading about WW2, one always hears about this image that Hitler's meddling with military affairs made bad situation into a disaster. Hitler is depicted as this imbecile fanatic who surrounded himself with yes-man.

But somehow this image does not seem to me very true. First of all, I think we need to distinguish pre-1942 Hitler and post-1942 Hitler. It is known his doctor made him into a junkie. So as a time progressed and the stress of loosing the war was taking a toll, it seems reasonable he was indeed approaching the "imbecile fanatic" picture.

For this reason, let us not talk about post-Stalingrad Hitler. Now pre Stalingrad Hitler seems to me as someone who was always willing to listen to his subordinates and advisors. He took charge and overruled his subordinates only when he believed he knows the correct course of action. And he, from what I know, always came to his conclusions only after a lot of considerations and discussions. And he has almost always chosen right. I think no one really talks a lot about pre-USSR Hitler's blunders. Perhaps some mistakes here and there, but not blunders. That would be crazy considering his achievements.

The USSR invasion is the thing that kickstarts the talk about his blunders as it failed monumentally. In Hitler's eye, the invasion was necessary, because he feared dependence on other countries, especially USSR for its raw materials. He had to take them and make Germany self-sufficient. Of course, there are ideological subtexts, but Molotov-Ribbentrop pact shows quite clearly Hitler was first and foremost practical man and not a fanatic. He would push his ideologies, but only as much as situation allowed him. Now, I read that whole nazi-germany was basically biggest ponzi scheme in the world. The country would go bankrupt if not for the constant aggression.

So let us start with Hitlers blunders, which I keep hearing about:

1) Attack on Yugoslavia, that postponed the USSR invasion for 5 weeks, just because he was butthurt. Is it really a blunder? Hitler did manage diplomatic solution with the government, but the country ignored it. It is said, that Hitler was butthurt over this, so he invaded. Now, I am sure Hitler was indeed butthurt, but could he made another decision? Keeping such unstable neighbor that ignores diplomatic solutions at the outset of invasion?

2) invasion of USSR. Was there any other choice for him, except giving up the power and military gains to make peace with Britain? After Battle of Britain, it became obvious Germany is in no position to win the war. British are not really a danger in 1941, but as time progressed they would gain strength and their plotting would undermine Germany in a along run. And because they have industrial power of US backing them up, they would most surely ultimately won. Add to this the ideological tension between USSR and Germany, Germany dependence on raw materials from USSR, terrible Germany intelligence and reforms that were taking place in USSR and you see, there was not really that many options for Hitler.

3.) Hitler's redirection of AG center to south which postponed the drive on Moscow. This one I cannot comprehend the most. It led to the biggest encirclement in history, allowed Germans to consolidate their position and logistic for subsequent drive and get rid of the danger from the flanks and allowed AG south take the Ukraine and prepare for drive on oil fields in Caucasus, you now the main objective of whole invasion. Also, in retrospect it seems the Russians would probably not gave up just because their city fell (if it would, I mean, its huge city. Surely it can mount impressive defences). People talk about railway hub, but it seems to me that it could not been the only thing keeping red army and government going. Just cant see how is the blind push on Moscow justified strategically more than what Hitler wanted. And German army seems to me to have very bad record in their strategical decisions. When I read about WW1, it seemed to me the strategical vision was nowhere to be found. Their just planned for the next battle/offensive and that was it. If I would call anyone imbecile, it would be Halder with respect to his strategical thinking. I recall he dismissed Hitlers ideas because he (paraphrasing) "would not allow economical considerations to dictate operational planning". So he made whole wishful thinking on which the USSR invasion was build on even worse. Instead of hurting the USSR economy while strengthening his country economy as much as possible, he bet everything on the idea Russians will just rage-quit after taking their capitol as I so often do playing Civ4.

4.) Hitlers surrounding himself with yes-man and obedient generals.

I agree this is a blunder. But can we really judge Hitler on this front so harshly? Seems to me before Battle of Moscow he did not do it. Also it seems to me he had clear vision that the main attack was supposed to be targeted based on economical considerations, especially getting the resources. His generals opposed him with their idea of drive on Moscow and he let them, albeit reluctantly. I recall Halder in his diary often complained about Hitler always bringing it up and arguing about it. But his generals failed to deliver. The Germany reached Moscow without defeating the enemy or taking the city and it seemed long and bloody war became inevitable which Hitler, I believe rightly so, thought Germany would loose. He could gave up and sue for peace, but he made one more bet for pushing on Caucasus in the next year and finally taking what was so terribly needed. His generals betrayed him and they failed and left the country to a terrible situation. They showed no vision and from this point onward, Hitler took over. When generals argued they need to retreat, he did not listen, he no longer trusted their judgment. I believe he could see the tactical points they were making, but he could no longer trust that their ideas were in line with strategical needs of Germany. So when their argue to retreat in the south, he said no and he did not listen. He made one more bet for the push on Caucasus in 1942 and he needed the best position to achieve it. When they argued they need to retreat in the center, he did not listen and I think historians stand by his decision as the correct one. His generals failed, now it is up to him...

But of course, before he decided only from time to time after a lot of discussions and considerations. Once he takes control, his decisions will be made more often and therefore with less careful thinking and analysis. He will start to meddle with decisions he should really leave for generals to make, and he will do this more and more...

5) War declaration to US

Well, they were basically in a war already, its only that no one said it out loud. At least now he can attack the shipping with clear mind. And Hitler did need Japan navy for the eventual invasion of England in the future and declaring war was the best course of action to get on their good side. Its not like the US can do much in the following year in which the Germany will either secure its victory over USSR, or loose anyway. And Hitler never plan for loosing, it was either ultimate domination or ultimate failure with him. It was what made his successes, so I do not think we can call it blunder, just a bet that did not pay of. But I do see rational thinking behind this decision.

​

So can you comment on this 5 commonly told blunders if they are truly as terrible as they are believed to be? Do you know about other pre-Stalingrad blunders that are worth mentioning here? (I do not know that much about 1942 and later years, there might be more).

Everywhere from Japan to Canada to Saudi Arabia, none of which share an alphabet, uses the same digits: 1, 2, 3... etc.

Hello.

I wanted to ask this for sometime now, but I don't know how because usually when I ask, people get confused by my choice of pronunciation.

So here it is.

I want to know about Social Conservatism, how is started and how it effected history, the bad and the good, because I don't know anything about it but I stand against it.