I have a question:

Even the USA and Canada received many Dutch, Germans and Scandinavians. The "White Australia" policy allowed only British immigrants to immigrate to Australia. Everything changed in the second half of the 20th century.

I have been reading some of Tecumseh's speeches, particulalrly interested in the 1810 Speech at Vincennes. Were these speeches conducted in English or translated? And would they have been printed in newspapers and circulated beyond their context? Generally, I'm curious if the print culture of the early 19th century America included reporatge and/or dispatches of Native American responses and statements to the expansion of the United States.

After doing some reading on late 19th century/early 20th century east asia, I've noticed the abundance of facial hair wasn't only present but seemed the norm.

Chiang-Kai Shek, Sun Yat-Sen, Emperor Meiji, numerous generals, etc. Even stemming back to pre-19th century, it seemed like facial hair, or just longer hair in general, was a lot more prominent.

What caused the change? Was it a desire to adapt to western standards? Was it simply just a political trend?

There's a lot of parallels between Trump and Hitler that are often espoused as clear evidence that Trump's a fascist, that I can't help but see in Julius Caesar.

Caesar used the actual powers afforded to the position he rose to legitimately, to elevate his own position beyond the original intent of those laws, with the goal of centralizing power around himself. He might not have had the support of other officials, as the ending that I won't spoil will reveal, but enjoyed a large amount of support from the public. The public's view that he was an ideal patriot was, from what I heard in history class, largely the result of his successful military campaigns, and for anyone who hasn't read how those went, let's just say he didn't treat humans of those bordering nations great.

So my question is this, by post world war II standards, is Julius Caesar just a fascist who used populism to turn a republic in to an empire?

So I know the purpose was to uncover brainwashing techniques that allowed the CIA to make unsuspecting people carry out assassinations on public officials… but why?

What was the purpose of creating sleepers in the U.S.? Who was it really for if any politician could be targeted by it? Doesn’t that give the CIA specifically a wild amount of unchecked power?

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/200ru9/why_do_we_study_history_i_am_at_a_loss/

From this post, certainly I agree that there is utility in studying history. We learn how to work from cause and effect, and make inferences about the future from how the past led to today. Furthermore, trends in human behaviour can give information on the human psyche. However, I was wondering why does this apply to studying all of history? If you have a case-study of the life of 20 soldiers in some war, why should you need a 100 more (beyond pedagogy)? If we know how medicine evolved from 1000CE to today, what utility is there in learning how medicine evolved before then?

Don't get me wrong. I certainly don't think that utility is the be-all and end-all metric to why we should do something. I'm just wondering what the reason is, whether it be philosophically aesthetic reason, utilitarian etc

Pretty much the question above.

Do we have any data how muslim was the population of Egypt in, say, 995? Or population of Iran in 820?

I saw a picture of an Orthodox Church and their is an icon on almost every square inch, even when compared to say Catholic Churches which also tend to have a lot of art. Why is that?

As of 2024, Russia is around 62% Christian, 21% Atheist, 10% Muslim and 1.4% belonging to other religions (the rest were undeclared), Whereas ethnically it's only around 70% Russian. (Source: Wikipedia)

And to my knowledge it's not like Russia was historically any more tolerant towards minorities than most Western European states. Indeed, Russian history is also no stranger to mass ethnic cleansing, as the Circassians and Crimean Tatars can attest.

And yet, you still have places like Dagestan, Tatarstan, Chechnya and many other regions in Russia where Russians and Orthodox Christians are themselves a minority. This is in stark contrast to say Western Europe, which has historically basically been 100% Christian and isn't nearly as ethnically diverse.

So why is this the case? Were the minorities in Russia somehow more resistant to persecution, or did the Russian State itself functioned in way that it couldn't completely assimilate ethnic or religious minorities?

The 20th century saw several mass explosions and forced population transfers like the populations exchange between Greece and turkey, the expulsion of Germans from Eastern Europe, the f@#cking partion of India and Pakistan and many many more. Well some of these did result in violence and animosity it seems in general people who where forcibly moved during these populations exchanges and expulsions mostly accepted it and moved on with their lives. Why didn’t this happened with Palestine? Why did Palestinians remained a distinct ethnic group instead of being assimilated into the other Arab nations that they fleed to?

I find it pretty obvious that the USA had a massive influence after WW2, if not before, through Hollywood, comic books, video games, and so on. There is hardly any countries that can fight on equal terms here. I would like to know how such a situation came to be, particularly through economics and political lens. What recommendations there are?

Hello people, I would like to ask a question. I am currently on a small project regarding this police force and I cannot find how their rank collars or insignias on those collars look like between years 1921-1933? And also colour of their uniform in this period. Some rank chart with rank names and pictures would be useful.

I only found one rank that's all.

I've heard that the German monarchists largely fell in line with the Nazis, but I was curious.

In the popular conception Brittany is a "celtic nation" but if you go on the net and look up its culture you'd soon find out about half of it is shown as traditionally being Gallo-speaking, that is - a cousin language of French.

The big cities which served as ceremonial capitals are also located in this same eastern Gallo-speaking region, including Rennes and Nantes.

How celtic was actually the Duchy of Brittany?

In videogames and in entertainment related to medieval times in general it is very common to hear Celtic music as soundtrack.

I've been wondering why is it that we relate it so much with Middle Ages and such.

In my case, If someone mentions "Medieval Music" the first thing that comes to my mind is Celtic, is it for some reason in specific?

I've heard a lot about Mesopotamia's legacy in "the West," largely via the culture/literature/religions of Greece and Israel/Judea. But what about to Mesopotamia's east? Did they interact with/influence peoples and cultures in Central Asia, India, China, etc.?

I’ve read Colleen McCullough’s Masters of Rome series several times. She portrays Caesar as a genius—which he probably had to be.

The crossing of the Rubicon marks the turning point. McCullough says that Caesar didn’t want to take that step, but was forced into it: the Senate’s refusal to allow Caesar to be elected consul in absentia, and the accompanying risk that he would lose his imperium and be prosecuted and exiled on fabricated charges, was too great a violation of Caesar’s dignitas. That’s why he crossed the Rubicon.

And only due to the Senate’s continued refusal to cooperate with Caesar’s reforms as dictator did he become increasingly authoritarian, eventually having himself appointed dictator in perpetuum.

Or was it always Caesar’s goal to rule Rome alone?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the topic, but as far as I understand it, Catholic Monarchs derived at least part of their claim to rule over an area that they have been chosen by God to rule and protect the peasants living on their land and that this was also reinforced by the church to legitimize the class structure of Peasentry, Clergy and Nobles.

However wouldn't Rulers of Italian Republics contradict that image of "God's chosen" Monarchs being needed to protect the people?

Furthermore were there ever Royals who considered those Republics as potential threats to their hereditary rule? (Similar to how European empires feared that revolutionary ideals would spread to their people after the French revolution)