So the more I researched, the more convoluted it gets

For some reason the great powers all want territory and influence there, but at the same time they prevent anyone from taking power there and if by any chance a native Balkan nation starts rising in power, they do everything in their power to suppress it and neuter it.

Specifically there was a San Stefano treaty designed around a independent ethnic Bulgaria, but everyone knew it was never to actually be realized, because no one wanted a strong Slavic nation in the Balkans, even by the Russians who created it in the first place who signed secret pacts with Austria. Also the British were one of the most involved in the negotiations for territories.

This is just one example and due to this it is the reason it became a powder keg in the first place, which resulted in bitter relations between the natives and in many cases genocide.

The question is why?

They don't seem to have that many valuable resources. They are in mountainous terrain and difficult to integrate considering their large ethnic diversity. Only the Bosporus seems to be of real value in that region.

How likely is it that, on the court records, that says I cannot read or write, that the English merely assumed I couldn't read or write in English, but could I be literate in my own tongue?

​

I ask because my ancestry has a mention of my Irish ancestors being brought before a magistrate in County Cork on the charge of assaulting a dwelling, and a member of an Irish rebel group called the Whiteboys. How likely is it that my ancestors actually knew how to read and write in Irish, but not in English?

My reasoning is that all these structures couldn't be built in a heavily forested area as you need space to build these structures and you need an open area to begin construction of these sites. As these sites are complex, I believe that they couldn't have been built by nomadic cultures, but rather by chiefdoms and complex societies. AS such, these complex societies needed to have agriculture or maybe raised some sort of stock animals. And with this, trade networks might have been developed with neighboring cities and chiefdoms. Forming complex societies and complex trading networks that wouldn't have work in such a heavily forested area as the Amazon.

A possible reason that we have no records of such complex societies is that all these societies were wiped out by disease that the conquistadors introduced in the New World. As many people died off, these trade networks and societies got wiped out as there weren't enough people to continue trade, agriculture, etc. Leading to the small bands of tribes that we saw after. After being wiped out, the Amazon wasn't fully explore until centuries later. Within this time period, the rainforest grew over these cities and hid them until we cut down all these trees.

From what I've read, some conquistadors did attempt to explore the Amazon but couldn't as they faced large number of natives in canoes in small cities along the river. Which is extraordinary as future attempts haven't been able to find any trace of these cites as they might have been grown over by trees or may have been washed over by the river.

As such, is it possible that there could have been many civilizations in the Amazon rain forest that we are only barely able to see because the Rainforest grew over them and through time, these civilizations were forgotten by their own descendants. And its only now with heavy deforestation and exploration that we are able to see all this.

If you look at the Egyptian mummy's that are taken out of their graves and you look at Victorian dead people who are found and re-burried, where do you draw the line? Edit: this is not meant as criticism, it's a serious question

I’m aware that a draft version of the Declaration of Independence included a section condemning slavery, which was ultimately removed, and I know that there was public debate around the wording, especially the phrasing of “all men created equal”.

Does anyone have specific examples of contemporary people responding to the hypocrisy of this phrasing? I seem to remember reading an excellent letter that was published in a newspaper, but now that I’m trying to find it again I can’t find the source.

I’d love to read the words of people from 1776 to get an idea of how some people were thinking and publicly challenging slavery during that period.

My research in the subject of folklore often brings up Finnish folklorists, sometimes in passing as if I were supposed to know about them. Is Finland truly so significant to the development of folkloristic studies? And if so, how? I understand Finland had a nationalistic movement in the nineteenth century, resulting in the creation of its own national mythological epic the Kalevala, which was derived from its native folk traditions, so I wouldn't be surprised if that was related somehow.

I’ve always wanted to read more about this period or the early republic but have struggled to find much.

I wish to read it as I think it could help me for classes, but is it a factual book?

Like where they aware they were making hybrid systems, was that a well planned out process by smart people, or was it extremely involuntary and accidental, just leaders riding the wave of these changes? And how fast did it happen, like was it complete with the frankish kingdom, with charlemagne, or later? or earlier, like when Rome was conquered?

​

The 19th century is a period of great immigration from different countries to the US. Many of these people were from poor families that struggled to survive in the lands of their birth, often without any education. How this mass of people had found oneself in such an unfamiliar place, with a different culture and most importantly, the language; knowing that they had only spoken their native languages.

Hello all. I am a New Yorker with English heritage - my father was born in England and I have many extended family there that we are all close with. I have been wanting to get a tattoo symbolizing my background and recently have been on the idea of getting a Tudor Rose, seeing as it would tie in New York well (rose is the state flower).

I’ve been researching the history of the Tudor Rose in order to see if this would be the right thing for me. While I love the look of it and have a good feeling about my idea (the England - New York tie in), I have some thoughts that are holding me back and require more research. Apart from the information readily available via quick Google search, I’ve been struggling to find much else, or perhaps much else that relates to my thoughts.

Here is what is hanging me up: Isn’t the Tudor Rose essentially a symbol of British Imperialism? Of the white man reigning? How problematic is the Tudor Rose in a modern context? The Tudor Rose is seen in so contemporary uses: a prominent emblem in many towns and cities (Yorkshire flag, for one, in addition to the Queens County flag in New York City), the badge of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, a watch company, etc. Ah, but Mississippi had the confederate flag on their state flag up until 2020! Just because it’s on an official coat of arms doesn’t mean it’s okay!…. Obviously, the confederate flag carries a much different meaning in general than the Tudor Rose, but maybe you see the point I’m trying to make and the discussions I’m having with myself.

I am on a complex topic here and appreciate any feedback. I would love to read more on this, and am open to (and interested in!) checking out some books on this topic. I hope this question is appropriate for this sub, I have read the FAQ, and can ask it elsewhere if needed.

I know from the rules of this sub that I should expect in-depth answers, but I would like to note that I am already a fairly heavily tattooed person, and would like to keep this conversation away from: “if you’re struggling with these thoughts you shouldn’t get it tattooed” and the simple “well, you’re getting the tattoo of a symbol of British Imperialism! English aristocracy! Of course it’s problematic!” Yes, and people get the American Flag tattooed, among many other symbols. I wish to go a little deeper and focus on what the meaning behind the Tudor Rose is as a symbol, in the modern day. I included the tattoo information from the start to give context and show the weight of my research motivation.

Thanks in advance for any comments and insight.

I recently watched the three-part German-language World War II mini-series Unsere Mütter, Unsere Väter (in English as "Generation War"). One of the plot points involves Polish partisans, and the series is at pains to indicate that while they were anti-Nazi (and anti-Soviet), they were also anti-Jew, to the point of not caring about leaving Jews in a locked, hijacked train car bound for Auschwitz to starve and die, and not being able to suffer a Jew to be among them, even one who had proved himself a loyal anti-Nazi and willing to lay down his life in that cause. If anything the film shows the partisans to be more "authentically" anti-Semitic than all but the most vile of the German characters (e.g., the SS-officer types; the other Germans seem to be just following Nazi ideology cynically, rather than being "true believers").

I read some reviews of it, and this aspect understandably got objections from Polish viewers. What's the historical reality? Were the Polish partisans particularly anti-Semitic? Is depicting them as such a historical injustice or within the realm of possibility?

I couldn't sleep so I was watching History Channel documentaries on hulu (I know, History Channel is not a good source, that's why I'm asking here) this one was about Ancient Egypt. The series is "Ancient Top 10" and it's S1E1 Secrets of Egypt. In this episode they do a countdown of the top 10 secrets in Egypt and #2 was the Lighthouse of Alexandria. There were two claims they made in this video that seemed a bit stretched: The first one was this quote below, saying that the mirrors on the lighthouse could destroy ships in the harbor.

"There are actually ancient sources that say the lighthouse could focus a lethal beam of light and aim it at enemy ships, burning them"

This seems utterly ridiculous to me but they do mention sources, but they fail to link them anywhere. Is this factual at all, or is it the History Channel saying "probably not but if it was wouldn't we get lots of ratings on this episode"?

The second one was that the lighthouse's light could be seen from 30 miles away, which the show claims hasn't yet been matched by modern technology. I'm assuming that both of these ideas are bogus, but I was so intrigued by how ridiculous they sounded that I wanted to find out the truth. I'm even more skeptical because all of their "experts" just have titles that say "Historian" or "Factual TV Host" and they don't cite any sources at all. Reading between the lines it seems like they are using fanciful tales told by travelers as proof for these claims.

​

Thanks much, love this sub!

A question that has been on my mind a while now, why is it that most fantasy videogames, films or series are set in a late medieval period with plate armour, longswords, pikes and such, it seems that the 15th/16th centuries are most prevalent above any other period. I've not heard of or seen a fantasy set during the 13th century for example. The Witcher could be a contender, but most of the armour is anachronistic and would be found in much later periods in history.

What began this trend, and why don't we see medieval fantasy set in earlier periods as often?

Nomadic, indigenous peoples are often portrayed as rarely reproducing more than the carrying capacity of their land could handle. If this was true, how did they manage it? Did they abstain from sex periodically? Practice some form of birth control? Or did they just die young from illnesses and accidents?

I ask because I've recently been playing an absolute crap tonne of Crusader Kings 3 and if you're a Norse ruler you can convert the Anglo Saxon Catholics to your culture and religion.

Do we know if this has any historical basis? Did (at least some) Anglo Saxon people take on the norse way of life? or is it just game mechanics.

How did the Spanish missionaries managed to spread and explained Catholicism to Amerindians?

Did they knew how to speak their language?

If so how did they learn the language of the Amerindians?

Most of their language didn't even had a script