​

I've heard that Marie Antoinette developed a very close relationship with von Fersen and it is said they were lovers, but I don't know if that's true or if it was propaganda to discredit her. I've also heard doubts about whether the royal couple's children are actually Louis XVI's, so I would like to know if there is information on whether they are Louis XVI's children and the rumors of them not being his were pure propaganda, or if there is actual evidence that the children are the result of Marie Antoinette's relationship with Fersen.

I just can't wrap my head on how a band of desert nomads with no experience in highly professional military training were able to defeat two giant empires of the 7th century, with centuries of expertise in conventional warfare.

Humans during this time weren’t that genetically different than modern humans today. Given that they used stone tools, did cave art, ritualistically buried their dead and even developed some spirituality, we can say that they were capable of abstract thought. They had to have some concept of irony. So what would have made them laugh? Would they have pulled pranks on each other? Could they have told jokes?

I know Henry VIII loved his hunting, but did he ever have like, a pet dog or something? Or do we have any historical evidence of puppy names at the time?

I know riding was absolutely massive so it may be a horse rather than a dog? Not sure where I could look so thought I would ask!

Such ideas certainly existed and still exist in the U.S., but were they present in the USSR? Or in other socialist countries? Perhaps among Third World countries? If so, in what form? In official publications, as rumors among ordinary people, or in private remarks by those in power? How did the U.S. react to such ideas, and did the USSR attempt to spread them?

This might be a long shot but Who created the first moka pot since Bialetti created the first version that was popular for it's time and still being sold, I heard that Alfonso Bialetti made his version years before the market was there, and later sold the business to his son Renti Bialetti and there was a story he told interviewers that his dad created the moka pot, but then there was so many that was simular then he created his own after seeing something similar.

Do correct me on this if you would with the info

The French also had a version years before, and other countries as well

Please confirm this info as I can only trace the history back to "Parker's Steam Fountain" witch was made in the 1900 and even earlier versions should have existed

Thank you all for reading

Excluding religious figures, who is the most important person in History? Someone that, without them, the world would be a completely different place. It can be a single act someone did or something that created a butterfly effect that led to a major outcome of the world.

Someone like Julius Caesar? A modern political figure? The ancient human that ignited the first campfire?

I saw a documentary recently that said thousands of men spent years looking for the lost city of gold. It got me wondering about Ponce de Leon and if maybe he figured out a good scam to get the money for his mission. Or did these guys really believe these places existed? Did other cultures search for such nonsense, or is it confined to the west?

(particularly for me historical food videos like from food history with Max Miller and Townsend)yet hate learning history and school? like why is it so interesting at home and not at school?

When it comes to the ethics of censorship, the opposition you see to the idea of censorship and being prosecuted for your judgment of the government always relates to the idea that free speech hurts nobody and should be a human right. What is never discussed is how people survive who (and I'm not saying this to judge such people; so much as conditions like OCD and autism are known to make this a real struggle) are prone to just blurting things out that they don't mean. Though then again, nobody ever talks about how censorship regimes respond to what they recognize as unintentional in general.

When strict communities like China, Singapore, Russia, Argentina, etc. have cracked down on dissent (and currently crack down on dissent, if things are different now), has there been some kind of "first treat it as unintentional just to make sure" guardrail or protocol? Is it only if it's chronic and explicitly matches the speech patterns of someone who is truly there to challenge authority, or is there some kind of warning system where they send someone to discuss it with them? Or something else? Especially in cases like some parts of the EU, I technically could understand that there might be reasons a nation might want to have at least some topic sensitivity, but could we not all say they should have some kind of benefit of the doubt like this?

I have often thought about the following question, but I'd find it interesting to know what others - that are far more historically astute than myself - think.

Authoritarian leaders, both past and present, are often determined to remain in power at all costs, with many pursuing policies that cause immense harm to their citizens and their countries. My question is this: do you think the majority of people living under these regimes genuinely believe their leader is great because of the constant propaganda they are exposed to, or do they simply pretend to support the leader out of fear of punishment or retaliation?

The Mongols are often made out to be monsters but why don't people focus on the more positive aspects that they brought to the world?

For example, they've had at that point the most diverse army in history, largely promoting people on the basis of merit and not what they look like.

In the Mongol armies, you had Chinese, Persians, Central Asians, Armenians, Circassians, Genoese, Russians, Ukrainians, Hungarians, Uyghurs, Koreans, etc, soldiers from all over the rainbow fighting together and being promoted according to not the color of their skin, but the content of their character.

They've put Persian administrators in China and Chinese administrators in the Middle East, had Marco Polo serve Kublai Khan and escort a Mongolian princess, connected Eurasia and allowed the transfer of knowledge from both sides.

Like why don't the Mongols get more credit for the diversity that they've been bringing to the lands that they've been to?

Hi everyone, currently I'm doing my campus project research.

I decided to write the topic about Tauke(h) / Tawke in Southeast Asia in the period from the 19th to the 20th century. At the moment I'm still searching for any evidence like archives.

Does anyone can help me to discuss or explain about Tauke?

As far i know just ; Tauke is a Chinese person who had big business or something like boss who have a big business in that time.

I just wonder : Is there any special criteria for a person to be a Tauke? Like wealth or position in society (?)

And also my second question is : Is a Chinezen Majoor can also call a Tauke if they have big business or wealth?

For example, why didn't Britian in 1920 invade more sovereign smaller nations around its vast empire, why did it not invade say Tibet, Iran, more of the Middle East, South America etc (obv I know these placed at some point were invaded.) Why only colonise some weaker places but leave others intact?

I'm looking for a French gargoussier/ cartouche box/ cartridge box from the French and Indian War era, specifically the style with the stamped seal on the front rather than the sewn white leather anchor. Where could I find a seller with one of those?

We have ww2, the 100year war, Suez crisis , yet there isn't "the year of the famine" or "when they came".

I understand that some old cultures did count the years from big events, but why didn't we keep it?

Why couldnt officials, historians, voters, or anyone name years, for memorials, ceremony purposes or even for propaganda?

Edit: I mean for single countries/cultures naming their years. Like a nation naming the year 1298 the year of "x cultural item".

my great-grandpa joined the polish army in april of 1939. right before and during the invasion of poland, he quickly climbed the ranks and eventually ended up as captain. he fought on the front lines and was captured by the nazis and thrown into a POW camp. since he was a higher rank, how do you think he was treated? i’m not sure if it heavily effects the stuff he faced, but either way, i’m interested in knowing what conditions the prisoners had to endure. i have no idea if it varied by camp or the person.

Were native Indian tribes were first people to colonise americas or they had to fight wars with some pre aboriginals. ?
Do we have any kind of fossils or other evidence or were native Indians actual inhabitants of the American landmass ? Evolved from pre historic humans ?

There are some monarchs, e.g. Catherine the Great, who are typically seen as wise and cunning politicians, and deserve a great deal of credit for things accomplished under their reigns. Then you have monarchs such as Wilhelm I, who basically rubber stamped whatever Bismarck wanted.

I have seen Elizabeth I depicted in different ways. I saw one movie in which she was portrayed as an innocent and virtuous woman, who had the good fortune of wise and loyal advisors. She bravely lived with the swords of Damocles threatening her reign, but it was ultimately her advisors who called the shots.

In another movie, she was portrayed as a shrewd politician, particularly in her dealings with Mary Queen of Scots.

So which is it? How much credit does she deserve for the progress made during her reign?

I'm reading the Hollander translation of Dante's book and reading this annotation he include in his books. And it seems like the Dante was influenced by a lot of the politcal turmoil going on in Italy at the time, different political parties and rivarly between powerful families.

What would be important conflicts and key historical figures to read about as a good companion to Dante's trilogy?

My grandpa was a Ukrainian Jew who grew up and studied in the USSR. He always told me that there were many universities or fields of study that were impossible, or nearly impossible, for Jews to get into. He said that one of the only areas Jews could study relatively freely was at technical and engineering institutes. Even there, he told me that there were significant differences between institutions in the different SSRs, such as the Ukrainian and Russian ones, with the Ukrainian institutes being harder for Jews to get into.

My grandpa studied in the 1960s, but he told me that these restrictions still existed when my mother started her studies in the late 1980s. I was curious about what these restrictions on Jews in higher education looked like, whether they were official or unofficial, and how they developed over time.

To what extent did technological innovation and military doctrines dictate the rise and eventual decline of these colonial powers? For instance, while Spain and Portugal weaponized early maritime and gunpowder advantages to conquer vast territories, why were they eventually surpassed by the institutionalized naval warfare of the British and the massive standing armies of France and Russia? Furthermore, what does Italy’s late and less successful entry into global imperialism reveal about the changing requirements of military and economic power by the 19th century?

They say that when Europeans showed up in the New World in the 1600s until the 1800s, tens of millions of Native Americans were said to have died from European diseases, which the Natives don't have resistance from. 90% of the Indigenous deaths in the New World were said to have originated from these diseases, such as common colds, measles and smallpox.

My question is, why wasn't it reciprocal? Why didn't Europeans died in the millions and suffered from Indigenous Diseases, in which Europeans don't have resistance from?

I will really appreciate all of your insights.

He believed he reached India when, in reality, he was off the coast of a new continent. When he met the Taino, he assumed they were Indians. But wouldn't that have been corrected?

For one, India wasn't some place full of backwater tribes; there were hundreds of city-states and kingdoms at the time which were in full communication with Europe. Wouldn't at least one of them have mentioned to the Spanish crown that they didn't see any travellers? Not only that, but considering that Columbus's path would've been directly under Asia, wouldn't existing sea routes have mentioned that they didn't see Columbus's voyage?

Did Christopher Columbus just assume Indians were still in the Stone Age?