In the book list of the wiki, there is only the history of the African slave trades. However, I am looking for a more holistic approach, examining the history of slavery all over the world, over all periods, and the economic, political, and philosophical factors underpinning it.

Cheers.

I have come across a few sources online that discuss those in the west who were apposed to reuniunification when reading about the Anti-German current in the German left. However, there aren't many English sources about this. What were the arguements against reunification and how mainstream was the opposition?

I came across a couple of vague sources that seemed to describe the German Green party as opposing, or at least not supporting, reunification? Was this and other groups oppostion due to a support of the GDR or opposition to the West German goverment or opposition to German reunification in principle?

I have come across some sources referring to a reunited Germany as 'the fourth reich'. Was this a widespread sentiment?

What are some notable accomplishments or events that happened after Winston Churchill rose after power when Neville Chamberlain wasn't the PM anymore?

I wanna get into history but I'm just not sure where to start? I don't have a specific time period but how will I start anyway? I realize how broad this sounds but could some of you guys tell me how you got into history? Was it from school, was it from reading Wikipedia articles or was it from watching documentaries about history. There are a lot of time periods so it's kind of hard to pick one so I've been mostly all over the place and I wanted to hear about how other people got into history. Thanks in advance!

I've not been able to find any valid information from google on this (am probably just blind), but did medieval plate armour required a tailored fit, or was it largely one-size-fits-most? I'm assuming the gambeson allowed some leeway with the fitting of the armour, is that correct?

I don’t see a rule that forbids this kind of question, unless it does not count as historical. If so, maybe there is an occasion when this kind of question could be asked.

My understanding is that contemporary historians consider the notion of a European Dark Ages as somewhere between outdated and debunked.

This historian whose article sparked this question made the distinction between the Dark Ages and the later Middle Ages a core part of their main argument. Their justification might be simply that the phenomena they are studying change in character after the 10th century, which is where the definition of Dark Ages they’re following sets the divide between these eras.

That would make sense. But I’m still stuck on the very idea of using this concept of six “backwards” centuries that people who specialize in those centuries now seem to universally eschew. It makes me more skeptical of their judgment as a historian.

Have I inferred too much or judged this article too harshly? I’m curious if professional historians would respond similarly.

When I was in school we would learn about how civilizations like Rome and the ancient Indus River valley had some sort of plumbing and I recently figured that ancient Cretan civilization during the Bronze Age had some sort of plumbing so why is it that it wasn’t common in middle aged Europe?

Growing up as kids we get a really white washed sanitized view of the founding fathers as almost these saint like men of higher calling and virtue, they demanded a more enlightened form of government that gave political representation to the colonists after being unfairly taxed by the British government; and when King George refused their pleas they nobly took up arms fighting for a better world they believed in. After the war they implemented a democracy with a limited government so that the tyranny of the crown would never fall on Americans of future generations, and they even didn't crown one of themselves as king.

Then after a few years in college I've come to view things with a much more cynical lens, perhaps as a sort of whiplash effect if that makes sense, newer information mattering more than old. The Revolutionary War's initial grumblings begin, at least in my current understanding, with the Royal Proclamation of 1760 dictating that the colonists stop going around stealing land from and pissing off the natives, up until then nigh-infinite land for everyone who wants it being an incredibly important aspect of the American dream compared to Europe where all farmland had been neatly partitioned off for generations. After this the taxes sought by the British government were a fair asking point from the colonists after the French and Indian war had devastated the British coffers (genuine point of ignorance on my part here, was that a good thing for the colonists or was it just Britain maintaining the right to profit off of colonies that would be fine either way?) After the war the founding fathers created a fairly bougie system where in landowning gentry were the sole politically empowered group in this country. Overall it seems like that patriots, or at least their leadership, were a bunch of rich guys just looking out for their own bottom line and fighting a war to protect it which is something I condemn entirely during the later American Civil War.

I imagine the answer is probably "it's complicated" but can someone help me out there? Is it fair of me to take such a cynical view of the founding fathers? Is there anything I'm genuinely failing to give them credit for or some indications that they were genuinely well intentioned to any significant degree?

Hello fellow historian, I'm on third years at university and i want to pursue my education after getting my diploma. Which degree (sociology, political science...) is best for history major ?

So, what I generally understood was that Rome in its earlier Republican days had armies that were, for the most part, a sort of part-time militia that consisted of landowning citizens of the city, who were formed into Maniples. The units were classified according to their relative wealth and age groups with Velites and Hastati being among the youngest/poorest and Equites and Triarii being among the oldest/richest. This system would be overhauled with a series of reforms by Gaius Marius during the Cimbrian War, where (among other things) he removed the wealth qualification, opening recruitment to any Roman citizen and replacing maniples with the Cohorts system.

More recently, however, I have seen arguments that it was not so much of a thing. Many of the changes attributed to Marius happened in earlier prior conflicts (such as the land-based restrictions being lifted by the time of the Punic Wars? Or the adoption of the Cohort being done during the Jurgithine War) These sorts of things would suggest to me that they were more of a gradual series of changes that accumulated over time and Marius had little to do with them happening.

So, my question(s) would be, were the "Marian Reforms" actually an event that happened, or were they a series of changes that occurred before Marius over time? If the latter is the case, where did the notion of such an event come from?

This has been bugging me. I have searched high and low on Google and can’t find anything about this, and I’m starting to wonder if a) I’ve imagined it or b) if it’s a daft urban legend.

So here’s how I remember it: a king (Charles II maybe?) was forced to flee and hide. Dressed as a civilian, he came across an inn or farmhouse where he asked for some food. He was offered an omelette, which he accepted, along with a request to make it using a dozen eggs. The inn keeper realised he couldn’t possibly be a regular citizen and his cover was blown.

Did this happen? If so, which king was it? Or is it a myth/figment of my imagination? Any help greatly appreciated!

Edit - Sorry for my late replies, I’m on UK time. Thank you all so much. I’ve concluded that a) I’ve meshed together several real events into one egg-tastic fable and b) European kings spent a startling amount of time hiding back in the day. Can’t imagine old Lizzie hiding up a tree eating scrambled eggs, dressed as a cook with ash smeared on her face. But you never know what Brexit will bring. Thanks a million for your awesome replies!!

Edit 2 - it actually happened! Or at least there are accounts of it happening. Not with an English monarch but a French Marquis. Thank you again. Solved!

There seem to be so many extra ways for something to go wrong dropping a space capsule into the ocean. What alternatives were considered and rejected to leave splashdown as the preferred return mechanism? Was the splashdown return relevant at all to the space race?

When comparing the centralized state of the Romans to the feudal ones of the medieval era, I wonder what made nations chose the latter.

I watch a lot of cooking videos and the first thing any pastry chef will tell you is to keep your butter cold if you want flaky pastries. If you don’t the butter will melt out and break creating an oily mess.

I know butter based pies and pastries are a huge part of Anglo European cuisines dating back to the Middle Ages.

How in the world did French pastry makers laminate dough for croissants or London pie shops make flaky pie crust with out ice or a freezer?

As per the title - I can't remember this particular conspiracy theory pre V bur then I was only about 10 at the time. I know the Illuminati, Masons and other "hidden figures" have been a thing for centuries, but were the "lizard people" connected with that show?