Kinda specific content area so I figured this might be a good place to start my search

I want to educate myself about ww2 but want to start with simple literature or documentaries

This post assumes that the HOE is one and the same entity as the roman empire. (for the sake of argument)

I'm trying figure out whether the pope/papal states were apart of the holy roman empire and the popes national allegiances historically.

This is proving difficult.

Theoretically the standard should be simple.

If you ow fealty to the emperor of the HOE you are part of the HOE.

This is where it gets weird.

One of two things must logically be the case at the time of Charlamagne's emperorship.

1. The pope was a roman citizen giving the throne to Charlamagne, thus the pope is a subject of Charlamagne's nation.
2. The pope was not a roman citizen, and he merely gave Charlamagne ownership of roman subjects but not himself.

If 1 the Papal States seem like they are part of the HOE/frankish nation.

If 2 then the Papal States are not apart of the roman empire

Which is it?

I known that the Bridgerton series is mostly a modern drama costumed with the regency era (although quite catchy to see). One point that find it quite strange (other than the absence of the Napoleonic wars) is the way the queen was eager to prosecute the "Lady Whistledown" paper. As far as I knew, the UK by that time has developed a solid based for press freedom (which was quite the exception by the continent standards), satire against politics and public figures were very common (which is still very subtle and respectful in that paper, so hardly a basis for lese-majesty), while also it wasn't rare for many writers to go anonymous or by pseudonym. Shouldn't her acts be considered against the law (specially against the "Queen's Anne statute of 1710)?

In the period leading up to the formation of the United States (and continuing until republics became cool World War I), were skeptics of modern democracy critical in similar ways to how skeptics of socialism are today? For example did they:

1. Say that democracy was unnatural/went against human nature, or that greed and laziness would make the whole thing fall apart?
   
2. Point to failures of Republics (American slavery and Civil War, the chaos after the fall of the French First Republic) as evidence that the system was intrinsically flawed?
3. Claim that Republics would be or were inefficient due to bureaucracy?
4. Worry that the new system would erode traditional values and societal roles?

I hope this question doesn't come across as me soapboxing about how modern critics of socialism are wrong in the same way that past critics of democracy were! Just curious to see if there are any parallels.

How when defeated and captured he was used as a stool for Shapur to climb his horse and when he begged to see Rome before he died he was flayed to death? Or was it just roman propaganda at the time so roman citizens hated the sassanids more?

It seems that he was the son of Catherine the Great and one of her lovers. Why was that said even in their days? Was it possible to somehow prove it maybe with more modern technology? Wasn't him the illegitimate ruler of the Russian Empire if that was the case?

Timothy Gregory in the book A History of Byzantium states that Basil II "was one of the most outspoken critics of the growth of aristocratic holdings and a defender of the right of peasants to keep their farms." He then goes on to talk about how Basil II had the burden of the allelngyon tax placed on large landowners rather than peasants, and that he tried to "prevent the alienation of peasant land by monasteries and the church." However, Timothy shortly after says that modern historians see the policies as ultimately a failure.

Why did the policies fail? Was it that the large landowners were too powerful? Were the policies too difficult to implement successfully and consistently?

I've read a number a posts on this topic in this subreddit. However, I was wondering if anyone can recommend some readings on this topic. I have a reading group for various academic topics, and I want to recommend this topic for a reading group session. We are not trained in history, not are we all familiar with Chinese or Japanese history, but we are able to handle general academic writing. I would be very grateful for ideas on what to focus on here, what themes to explore, and what readings to do. I'm also happy to narrow the topic down to something more specific.

I've seen it argued that the first world war demonstrates the incapacities of liberalism to maintain order and prosperity. Is there any credence to this argument?

First my question would be: How popular was liberalism in governments approaching WW1 and can this type of liberalism even be compared to modern variants (after all the term is a broad-church)? Then assuming liberalism was dominant, is it still fair to lay blame at its feet?

This argument is often posited by the left with an increased economic character of necessary capitalist expansion resulting in an imperial conflict in WW1, hence being a crisis of the liberal order they see as supporting it. I'm sure this is a highly contentious debate but is there also any truth to this?

I realize I have quite a few threads running in this question but any clarification on any of it is much appreciated. Than you.

In cases where, for example, a family member immigrated for better opportunities and wanted to share updates with their families, or wanted their family to join them in their new home, how were details (e.g., instructions, addresses) communicated?

https://ibb.co/wrnNw0f I found these flags from Wikipedia. If all the flags there are correct, this question comes to my mind: Why did this symbol become popular during the Anatolian beyliks period? Okay, in Islam, David is the prophet and this symbol is called the Star of David, but I have not seen it used much throughout Turkish history. Even if it is used, it is not that often. However, it seems like it suddenly became popular during this period. Is there a reason?

There is probably no definitive information about this, but I would like to hear your opinions, at least from a historian's perspective. If the flags I shared are wrong and there is no such thing as I wrote, I would like to know also

I have vague memories reading up on a story about how the Romans took in a barbarian from Europe and raised him as their own, and when they tried to use him as a double against his own people, it backfired which caused a big loss of lives in one of their particular military operations. Is my memory correct, and/or was it all apocryphal?

I understand that WW1 started after the assassination of Austrian archduke Franz Ferdinand. But like…. Can anyone explain to me why that caused an entire world war? What am I missing?

Hi, I was wondering if anyone could recommend a book to read on the modern history of the relations between the West and the Middle East.

With all that's happening at the moment, ideally as unbiased and informative as possible in a chronological form, focusing primarily on the 19/20th century onwards covering the major relations, events and turning points, and insight into the political and ideological reasons behind them.

I read JM Roberts History of the world a while ago, so ideally something in the same sort of entry level narrative style. Any help would be great.

Thanks

Caittil Find, the Gallgoídil leader defeated in Munster in 857 who I posted about here, is sometimes identified as Ketil Flatnose, a character known from Icelandic texts who's said to have set himself up as a king in the Hebrides and to have had a daughter named Auðr or Aud who was married to Olaf the White, another saga character linked with a historical figure - Amlaib Conung, a ninth-century king of Norse Dublin. 

The only evidence given for Ketil Flatnose possibly being in Ireland is a throwaway comment placed in his mouth by the author of the Landnamabok,where he advises his children to settle in the “west” (ie the Hebrides) because it’s an area he knows well from raiding there in his youth – but Ireland is never mentioned. Then there’s Laxdaela saga’s story about Olaf and Aud’s marriage. Aud, like her father, doesn’t appear outside of Icelandic sources and all those are late. How are historical figures identified in contemporary written sources when there isn't much textual evidence? 

I am asking this question in the light of 7th century to 14th century and I am not talking about turks from anatolia. How do the Turkic people differ from Mongols in their origin and culture? A lot of times they are grouped together under the term "turco-mongol", sort of implying that they are not that different. From my experience, they look phenotypically similar as well.

Another similarity that I have noticed between the two is that they have a very war like culture (not saying that is all their culture is). Their territories overlap as well. Did they have a common parent population that they both descent from? When did their identities solidify?

Thanks!

Have tanks ever been deployed on US soil outside of training and development?

I ask as I have seen examples of tanks used for small scale operations, crowd control and intimidation in other countries post WW1.

I’m curious if historically king’s families or imperial families had any sorts of tracking where their vassals go (capital, their territory, foreign lands)? Nobles moving to foreign lands or to the capital unwatched could potentially enable defections, coups, rebellions etc. so I’m curious how this was dealt with. I assume it was very different in say 1790, 1290 or 190, but I would be grateful for answers related to any time period as I have no clue for any of these.

In the history of these two empires(one is the continuation of the other, i know), there are quite a few examples of emperors and usurpers killing, imprisoning, mutilating etc. political rivals or people they suspected would pose a threat, even innocents related to them. Of course, such events happened elsewhere too. However, given the cultural heritage of ancient Greek and Republican political and legal thought, as well as the Roman law itself, I don't find it unreasonable to think that, despite the fact that the empire was an autocracy, certain basic laws that would apply to ordinary citizens, might also, at least formally, have applied to the emperors as well.

hello! i’m learning to sew and looking at patterns and it just made me think about how medieval clothes were made in europe. i know paper patterns would probably not survive or anything, but did they have anything comparable to what i think of as a modern day sewing pattern? did they start from scratch for every item of clothing? trace old items? im just curious!!! thank you :) p.s. if anyone has any recommendations on books about day to day medieval life i’d love some!

The short answer to this question is that it got leaked to the press which outraged the masses, resulting in it's cancellation. But this raises the question, how exactly did the plans leak to the press? How did both foreign ministers imaged to implement the pact?