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.

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.

Was it primarily a marketing phenomenon or were there other factors at play? What set them apart from other similar regions, for example, Spain? Are there historical examples of regions or products that were similarly dominant or preferred in fashion/beauty during previous eras or in different areas?

Hey all,

I've recently landed a role at a historic site that has some less-than-subtle nods and links to Freemasons and Rosicrucianism. It's obviously something I'm going to have to deep dive into, but at the moment, I'm focusing on the information that's more tourist-friendly rather than niche points. The building and family have lots of important points in history to focus on, so I'm skimming over other bits to give myself a starting point in the future.

From my very basic, new knowledge of Rosicrucianism, I'm wondering how its followers managed to avoid being caught up in the witch trials that were quite prevalent in Scotland. I know the period around the trials saw a growth in interest when it came to the occult, and the church responded, overall, in some rather brutal ways, but I haven't come across any targeted crackdown by the church.

Has any other US president had a “wing man” similar to how Elon musk is with Donald trump? Just curious.

as in people stopping seeing themselves as Russian or Kazakh or Azeri etc, Intermarriage between these groups increasing and cultures merging.

Im looking for primary sources on a bunch of different subjects but im not being very successful. Is there some web that compiles things like testimonies, speeches, etc by period or subject?

I recently came across several older conversations suggesting that Spartan military prowess was overrated, that Spartan society was more of a leisured society than a militaristic one, that the agoge wasn’t primarily for military functionality, and that the Spartans rose to power in large part through sheer numerical advantage rather than superior tactics. The conversation also implied that the legendary Spartan “super-warrior” image is largely a product of their last stand at Thermopylae—and that, at the time of Thermopylae, they didn’t have the militaristic reputation we usually associate with them today.

This is really surprising to me! For one thing, I’d always understood the agoge to be an educational institution highly suited to a militaristic, fairly oppressive society—if not in name, then at least in practice. I’m also curious about how Sparta managed to build the Peloponnesian League if their military strength was supposedly exaggerated. Did they truly have a population large enough to dwarf cities like Corinth, Tegea, and Argos, making numbers their biggest asset? My understanding is that most Spartan institutions during their heyday seem uniquely constructed to suit a highly militaristic society.

Finally, if Herodotus wrote relatively soon after the Persian Wars, it seems implausible that only about fifty years later, a myth of Spartan militarism and military ability would be so fully formed and projected into the past. If a lot of that reputation was a later invention, why don’t the Thespians—who also took part in that final stand—get similar (if lesser) lionization?

I’d love to hear from anyone who has insight or scholarly sources on the realities of Spartan society and its military reputation—particularly any new research that challenges the older “super-warrior” image. Thanks in advance!

I'm reading one of Paul Cartledge's books on Sparta right now (probably the more traditional perspective on Sparta). I have ordered one of Stephen Hodkinson's books to get some information on the new perspective. How lively a debate is this in the academic space right now?

In watching a few of the Anne Boleyn movies, they often depict her wearing a white cap before the execution, is there any reason for this besides keeping her hair off her neck? I’ve seen others in white caps before too, typically women, and wondered if there was a reason.

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?

It's not too hard to find details about what actually happened to celebrate October Revolution Day in Moscow or big cities, but for a district centre out in the provinces what would actually be involved? How was this occasion observed?

I'm interested in moving beyond the typical 'great figures' to understand the experiences and impact of people who may not be common known about, but whose stories provide windows into aspects of daily life, social structures or specific trades etc.

I mean there had to be at-least a few people who bought slaves and just said "ok you can go" in a effort to free them?

And were there any consequences? Or stories of other slave owners attacking/killing those people?

Edit: saw a comment about which time period, my bad for not including I meant US African slavery.

Academic, non-academic, narrative history. All suggestions are welcome.

I was reading about the battle of Changping and I was struck by how "bureaucratic" it felt. Maybe that's not the right word, I'll try to explain

For example, when they mention that Qin changed Wang He for Bai Qi it feels like they had a roaster of generals with different abilities and expertise, and they could send whomever was best for the current situation

I've never heard of any other ancient nation doing something similar. Usually the commander of the army was some noble and the state as an entity couldn't choose the best person for the job nor replace them

It seems to me that this requires a level of understanding of how a nation works that just wasn't very common until modern times

Another example of this "state-ly?" way of thinking was the whole conflict between Qin and Zhao. This wasn't a war for one province, this was just one stage in a larger conflict for the control of all of China, and they both knew it and acted like it

Even Bai Qi quitting in protest when the Emperor failed to follow on the "grand strategy" of the conflict reveals it, and there's also the fact that the strategy was nonetheless continued for decades until Qin eventually did unify China, even if it took them longer than expected

This kind of strategy reminds of the "the great game" between Russia and England for the control of Afghanistan, which itself was a stage in a conflict for the control of central Asia

But again, I can't think of many examples of ancient nations planning on this level of sophisticationt

And this battle is just one example, the history of China always gives me this feeling that people there understood states and nations in a deeper level than most people elsewhere. I mean, just inventing the Imperial Examination shows this understanding. There wasn't anything comparable in Europe, the Middle East, or India, until centuries afterwards

Even their religion was more bureaucratic. Zeus, Indra, Odin and other "kings of the gods" are imagined fighting and fucking and having adventures. Meanwhile the Jade Emperor is imagined ruling a celestial bureaucracy... Do you see what I mean?

But then, if it is true that people in China had a deeper understanding of how states work... Why?

Part of me thinks this was because there were simply more states around, but then I think of India and that doesn't hold up anymore. Then I think they needed this level of sophistication to survive against the barbarians but then I remember the Huns conquering Europe and it doesn't hold up again

Title.

To be more precise, I'm curious to know what affected the respective countries more and what was more thorough. It does seem like more Japanese war criminals were executed than German, but very few civilians who might have had a hand in forming whatever ideology Japan had in WW2 were even persecuted (excluding Okawa Shumei).

Considering the sheer cruelties exhibited during the Tudor and Cromwellian conquest of Ireland as well as the Great Famine in the 19th century, why was English rule over Ireland that much more severe compared to that in Scotland?

In Spice (Roger Crowley), it is mentioned that the Portuguese broke down Ferdinand Magellan's ship, the Trinidad, and used its wood to construct a Portuguese fort. Given the limited manpower and unfamiliar resources that early colonial powers like Spain, Portugal, and the Dutch had when establishing forts and trading posts, how did they manage the construction and fortification of these areas? Specifically, how did they build such structures with limited resources and low manpower for garrisons? In addition were these seemingly ad hoc fortifications, such as the Portuguese use of Trinidad's wood, ultimately successful and defensible from their adversaries?

I’ve sometimes heard/seen suggestions that the leaders of Imperial Japan during WWII, were, in idealogical terms, closer to Franco, Pétain, or Salazar than to their Axis allies Hitler and Mussolini; that Hirohito and Tojo were aristocratic and antidemocratic conservatives who used elements of fascism to maintain a traditional and hierarchical society in modern circumstances, while Hitler and Mussolini wanted to radically (and horribly) remake society through bloodshed. Is there any truth to this, or is this mere apologia for the regime?

Of course, whatever their ideology, Imperial Japan and its leaders and ordinary soldiers and sailors were guilty of committing many, many war crimes and crimes against humanity in China, Korea, and everywhere else they went during WWII.

as you know, the french empire took dalmatia, istria and whatever coast the austrian empire had before the war of the 5th coalition, and without a port, how were the Austrians supposed to use their navy? did they use the port of some other country or was the navy just dismantled for a bit?

Hi all, that's basically the question, but I haven't had any luck in finding the answer. Searching this group turns up some similar questions, but nothing specific for exactly what I want to find out. A general internet search didn't answer this specific question either. All I could find was the West Indies packet of mail was made up on the first Wednesday of every month, but that was to, not from, the British colonies in the West Indies, and it also doesn't say how long it took. So how long did it take in around 1820 for a piece of mail to get from the West Indies to Brtain? Thanks in advance for any ideas!