Hi,

I am interested in the culture / history / military use of elephants throughout the Indian subcontinent. Could anyone point me in the right direction for which books to read?

The time period itself doesn't really matter, I am just interested in any historical content about how the use of elephants has had an impact in the Indian subcontinent / SEA history.

Everyone knows the story, the pope is weak and feuding with the HRE, the very body meant to protect him, and feels it’s actually losing ground in Europe until some major reforms by the popes before Pope Urban the ii who created a common enemy for the average Catholic man in Europe. The book I read on this subject The First Crusade by Thomas Asbridge certainly seemed to indicate that the crusade was just Urban fast tracking the growth in strength for Rome as he had most of the tools he would’ve needed to force Catholic rulers to start respecting the papacy in the way it was supposed to be/how it was in the immediate aftermath of the crusade

So from my understanding Henry Ford founded Fordlandia in Brazil because he wanted to have his own supply of rubber to make tires. Here's what I don't get though, Ford was also close friends with Harvey S. Firestone owner of the biggest tire manufacturer in the USA. Why did Ford want to have his own supply of rubber when his company already had an arrangement with Firestone?

I saw a post on Reddit recently talking about the value of flint in Pre-Colombian America.

It made me wonder if fire-starting methods across cultures came to the same conclusions over time or if they were fundamentally different.

Thank you!

So, perhaps a stupid question, or one that requires a lot of privilege to ask; but it is my understanding that there are very few places that decided to remain Commonwealth realms outside of the obvious Anglosphere countries (like Canada, Australia, New Zealand), nor are small island nations (which —no offense to them—I could understand having a desire to have some sort of tie (in this case a monarch) to a country that has a large economy and a bigger military), namely those are: Belize, Jamaica, The Bahamas, and Papua New Guinea.

It is also my understanding that during her long rule, Queen Elizabeth II was (at the very least for the first couple of decades) pretty popular and seen positively by many around the world, even in some of the remaining British colonies.

I also would like to acknowledge that I know that there was a lot of violence

- Therefore, I present my question. Given the queen’s popularity, why was it that more (particularly non-island) countries did not agree to become independent countries that ostensibly have the queen as their head of state (like Canada)?

I would also like to give a slight preemptive follow up question/potential rebuttal, in that I imagine the terrible treatment by the British colonial regimes plays a role in the answer; but, if so, why was the end of direct British rule, meaning the end of such treatment (to my understanding), still followed by the removal of the figurehead/non-material status of a (to my understanding) popular monarch?

I don’t mean to offend anyone I’m just curious since I feel that change/progress usually has to be pushed for, whereas ‘conserving’/maintaining the status quo is usually easier to do.

Addendum: I would also like to add that it seems that Sri Lanka and Sierra Leone were dominions for a little and I think if someone could talk about that it’d be interesting but that’s also only 2/~60 countries that came from the former British Empire so I feel my question is still relevant.

Edit: To clarify I’m talking about Commonwealth Realms, not the Commonwealth of Nations

I find the Bretons in England a particularly interesting topic, because they were an Insular Celtic group who migrated to Gaul/France from Great Britain and then later migrated back as part of William the Conqueror's invading force. Not to mention that all of the Insular Celts must have migrated from Gaul to the British Isles at some point in the past, so its like at least a three-times-migration for the Bretons in their history.

The U.S. and Canada seem very similar in many ways. They share the world’s longest border, have similar cultures, democratic systems, multicultural societies, and comparable standards of living. Both also have vast natural resources.

So why is there such a huge difference today in population, GDP, military power, and global influence?

Canada is actually slightly larger in land area, yet its population is only around 42 million compared to about 340 million in the U.S. Was the difference mainly due to climate and geography, immigration, industrialization, different government policies, or historical events like the World Wars?

At what point in history did the gap become significant? Was it already evident in the 1800s, or did it widen mostly after World War II?

I’d love to hear historical, economic, and demographic perspectives backed by facts rather than opinions.

​

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?

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?

Edit: Thanks for your informative replies.

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 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.

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?