Edit: Marco Polo mentions these things near the end of chapter 11. Also, someone pointed out to me that this city is supposed to be Hangzhou and not Guangzhou. My edition of the book just says "Quinsai" so I had to guess. I understand the difference in the names is because a 14th century italian is trying to transcribe 14 century chinese names, so of course they are not gonna seem very familiar to us half a millennium later

Here are a few things Marco Polo says about Guangzhou:

• If someone was poor and couldn't afford a house they were given a house

• Couples could rent a castle for their weddings

• Everyone closed their businesses at the same time and headed to the park in a sort of parade

• This isn't exactly utopic, but he says there were streets dedicated to specific professions, like if the entire city was some sort of mall. "Shoemakers are in aisle 4, pharmacies in aisle 11"

And in general he just makes it sound like an extremely well administered city with no poverty, which then get immediately conquered when the Song Dynasty falls to Kublai Khan, and apparently in the letter the Queen wrote surrendering, and which Marco Polo translated himself, she asks Kublai to spare Guangzhou

How much of it is true?

So why do you think Qin Shi Huang - China's First Emperor is considered to be a tyrant?

first let me get this started by saying the Shiji (records of the grand historian) by Sima Qian shouldn't be a liable source as it was written a 100+ years after the death of the First Emperor, also it was a tool used by the Han dynasty to secure themselves the throne.

is their any historical evidence via archaeology or unbiased sources from the time that suggest he committed following actions:

• killing scholars Confucianism and destroyed their books (if so why didn't he kill Confucius bloodline).
• forced people to work on the Great Wall of China
• did he enslaved the citizens of the other states

It seems that he was way more villainized than what he actually was.

Specifically, did they practice any form of marriage and what did their long term relationships look like?

I've seen plenty of PhD programs (across the humanities and social sciences) that require two languages other than English, and the requirements are usually something along the lines of: "a modern research language (German or French) and one other language relevant to the student's research".

I'm familiar with the breadth of scholarship that came out of the German and French academies, so I understand why those languages are held in esteem - but why didn't the bodies of works from the Spanish, Italian, and Portuguese academics make as much an impact in modern and contemporary research? I've never seen any of these languages required outside of programs in which they are specifically relevant. German and French, though? Everywhere.

My main example of this are Athena and Artemis. They were both independent women without a husband and were responsible for male dominated domains, hunting and warfare. Athena is often depicted with spear, helmet and shield, which a respectable greek woman would never wear. This also applies to other cultures like Egypt or the Germanic/Nordic cultures. In my understanding the mythological world did not reflect the real life society, wich makes no sense.

Sorry if there is some strange grammar, my english is a bit rusty.

How about older American families and institutions like the Boston Brahmins, The Four Hundred, the Southern planter class, the Astors, the Livingstons, and the Stuyvesants? Were they aristocrats, and if so, why did they die out?

I am a student who is hoping to start a YouTube channel which focuses on history in the last 100 years -I have had a very difficult time finding free to use video (My first project is about WW2) -I have looked at archives like Pathe, Reuters (Screenocean), but all of the clips they have for sale are really expensive (250$) -I was hoping some historians out there might have some tips on archives/sites which have free to use clips from the time period.

• I have tried navigating LOC, but I've found it quite difficult. Any tips from historians who source media from LOC would also be very much appreciated, thank you!

I've read that The Rite of Spring enraged audiences during its first performance. Apparently people booed, hissed and even threw objects at the orchestra. I've also heard that some audience members nearly got into fights.

I have a hard time wrapping my head around the cultural context that would cause such a furious response. Why didn't the audience know what they were in for? Were there other nonconventional ballets that caused similar responses? I find it strange that a ballet audience--which in my imagination are people that try to look classy and dignified--would behave so crudely just because they didn't like the performance. I've never heard of even the worst films causing riotous behavior in the audience.

So what was it about this particular audience in 1913, and this particular ballet that made them lose it?

Thanks a bunch everyone.

I mean a organisation that controlled several bandit groups or... and made money by using and controlling them??

Did kingdoms of that time created this sort of organisations by themselves to make money or to damage other kingdoms??

Did such organisations controlled some resource points? Like gold mines and... ?

Is that possible?

I'm asking because I want to write a fantasy book and protagonist is going to be leader of such organisation.

What advices do you have for me?

(English is my second language.)

Growing up in continental Europe I was aware of delicious and distinct breads from France, Italy, Portugal, Germany, etc. But had no exposure to 'traditional' breads from Britain and Ireland. The stereotypes and popular history I was exposed to would suggest that from as early as the 5th Century Britain ate a lot of grains, either as bread or porridge. But by the Early Modern period meat, dairy, and vegetables grew in popularity - but looking at historic data it appears Britain continued to produce vast amounts of wheat and other grains why through from the 17th Century up to the modern period.

So why, when I go to a British or Irish supermarket, is the bread aisle filled with baguette, focaccia, etc. Sure, there are also crumpets and tattie scones - but did they never have their own 'delicacy' breads? I know why we eat French and Italian bread (they're fantastic. I'll never complain about brioche and ciabatta), but why doesn't anyone, apparently including the British, eat British bread? Is it because they used all their grain to make beer? Is it because they didn't have olive oil to make enriched doughs to compete with French and Italian?

Please help! In one of my assignments it says “include at least five secondary sources written by professional historians. 2 must be peer reviewed. 3 must be book projects (historical monographs)”

WTF DOES THAT MEAN WHERE DO I FIND THESE THINGS?!? I’m doing my research project on Motherhood during the Transatlantic slave trade. Please someone dumb this down for me. I missed class Monday and it really screwed me.

At the beginning of the war the various embassies were, as I understand it, removed so normal diplomatic communication would have presumably been impossible. But reading around one does occasionally read about negotiations and offers made by the various sides. For example I have read that after capturing Stalin's son the Germans offered to trade him a high ranking German officer. I have come across online claims (often quite controversial) that secret peace negotiations were had between Germany and the Britain. I have also come across the claim that the Soviet Union attempted to negotiate with Germany when things were at the worst.

I don't know how plausible such claims are but reading them made me wonder how would such communication have been done. If Churchill or Stalin wanted to call up Hitler and have a chat about some matter could they have done so? Did they ever do so? Was there any permanent line of communication maintained between the opposing powers? Was there some sort of hotline like during the cold war? Would neutral nations be employed? When Japan, Italy, and Germany did surrender how was this negotiated? Was there any communication about lesser matter (prisoners or some such) throughout the war and how was it managed?

did they use things that could change their hormones?

im also interested in how trans people were treated in different cultures. was transphobia common or is it a new thing?

I know there was violence on both sides, labor and ownership/management. What exactly was each side hoping to achieve by force? I assume neither side was trying to directly extort the other - that is, the owners were not trying to physically force the workers into returning to work, and the workers were not trying to literally force management into a better contract at the point of a gun. So why did violence occur? Were the owners trying to bring in replacement workers ("scabs") and the workers were trying to physically prevent this? Was there ever violence without owners trying to bring in replacements?

It seems to me that having the speed of a horse and not having to tire your legs by running and marching in battle while being on a raised and wheeled platform as opposed to the horses back, with a division of labour between the man doing the fighting and the man driving the horse, would be in many ways advantageous over the mounted cavalryman, but it seems that even by the time of the Hellenistic Age and certainly by the late Roman Republic the war chariot was considered out of date and was reduced to the equivalent of a Formula 1 vehicle, purely for sporting. Why?