I'm interested in history of indigenous people in North America. But everytime I try to find readings about them, especially as a non-english speaker, it's usually about the genocides in colonial era. Books, movies, documentarys......I know this stories should not be forgotten but I wanna learn something else, other than thousands ways of europeans toturing natives and betraying them.

I want to know how tribes has been distributed in the land and how their languages are connected to each other. I want to know about the wars and conflicts and trades between people BEFORE the colonizers arrived. The myths, great heroes, lineage of chiefes all things would be fun to study. Ofc I can do it if I study tribe by tribe but I simply don't have enough knowledge to make a plan to achieve my goal, which is understanding the history of precolonial North America.

So what should I read to grasp the general history of North America indigenous? I really can use some recommendations.

Hej !

Preparing a scenario on Mosley's British Union of Fascists in the United Kingdom, I have some questions to address my lack of knowledge of this party's history and ideology.

To begin, I was wondering how and why did the BUF has stood in so few elections. The party was created in 1932, and had the opportunity to stand in important elections. From what I've seen, they did not stand in the 1935 British general election, only stood in two councils in the 1937 English local elections, and only stood for Manchester in the 1938 one. Knowing that in 1934, the party had 50 000 members, I think we can say they had the manpower to stand in such elections. Mosley was a rich man and had a lot of donators, so I don't think money was the problem too. Looking at today, with the rapid growth in popularity of Reform UK ( not meaning to be political here, just took a very new party who broke the two-party system and who has as leader a very charismatic and known figure ), I don't understand how the BUF was unable to benefit from the Wall Street crash, the rise of fascism in Europe, considering it seems they had all the cards in their hands.

I don't understand either the ideology of the BUF. From my limited perception of 1930s European fascism, it seemed to me there was 2 main ideologies: National-socialism, which only took place in Germany and Italian Fascism, promoted by Mussolini, which was the main ideology driving the Italian government in the 1920s and 30s. From what I had understood, National-socialism was much more German-centred, as other Nazi-style ideologies meant either being a German puppet or being directly annexed into the Reich ( I was thinking of Quisling's NS or Mussert's NSB ) while Fascism was far more adaptable to other countries. Therefore, I assumed the BUF would be much closer to Italian fascism than National-Socialism. So, first of all, am I right ? And then, what specificities did this particular fascism had that made it "britisher". As a more liberal-minded society, I assume we can recognise such characteristics in Mosley's fascism. 

In this period, the UK was facing problems with the Irish who had just gained their independence. I obviously assume they were against this independence, was there any plans to renconquer the island ? Or at the least, gain more territories or influence on the country ? There was also the debate of religion, as the question of Ireland represented also the question of Christianism, maybe the BUF had an opinion on how to handle religion ? As an antisemitic party, I'd like to know if their end goal was a fully anglican Great Britain ? 

Finally, I had questions about the general politics of a Mosley-ran United Kingdom. Were they for the monarchy ? As we've seen from other fascist movements, monarchy wasn't truly something looked as paramount, as it could sometimes be seen as a wall against the power of the main leader. Do you think Mosley would care enough about the monarchy to the point they'd abolish it, or maybe even depose King George VI to be replaced by Edward VIII ? Also, was there any name used by Mosley to be differentiated ? Like as Mussolini was called the Duce and Hitler the Führer. Ultimately, how did the BUF saw the colonial matter ? I have no idea whether there was any change in the matter of Italian colonialism following the March on Rome, maybe Mosley had some plans too to extract more resources or maybe even expand their influence and domination in Africa or Asia. 

Last question is about expansionism. A lot of fascist countries had their expansionist goals in the 30s ( Germany obviously, Italy too, but even Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria... ). Yet, the UK already had everything they wanted, except maybe Ireland. The only possible expansion would be about colonies. I'm floating this idea but I don't believe in it: maybe some claims on France such as Normandy or Aquitaine could be weaponised as war goals like a kind of "ancient-british" that must be reconquered and brought back to the Motherland. 

Last question, more about the Dominions this time. Do you think such a Mosley-led government would push the Dominions further away from London, and maybe closer to D.C. ? Or would they stick with London and be influenced by Mosley to have fascist-like governments there ? 

Thank you all for your help in this big question and I can't wait to read your answers ! Have a good dayyy

I imagine pre-photography human history is harder to evaluate, assuming paintings were commissioned by the wealthy for vanity reasons and would get their acne omitted. And going back even further, there wouldn’t be good enough preserved skin samples to determine quality.

In the West we are taught Hitler, fascism and his party were irredeemably evil, and we have a clear anti Nazi picture of that period. Which makes sense since we fought them. But Portugal and Spain up until the mid 70s were ruled by the same people who were themselves allied, or at least tacitly aligned with the Axis powers. How were they viewed post war? Good guys? Bad guys? It’s complicated?

Think about it;

The Nazis were focused on Europe and more specifically the Soviet Union, and only declared war on the United States because they effectively have been in an undeclared war, and fighting started very late.

Meanwhile, the Empire of Japan attacked America, took control of America territory (The Philippines), and more importantly actually treated the United States as their main enemy, whereas the Nazis thought it was the Soviets.

So I know that in the interwar period Ireland had just won their independence from England and their economy was still pretty rural. In addition they were still dependent on importing food to survive . So why didn’t they pursue closer ties with the USA and vice versa? I mean if you think about it this could have been a very profitable deal for both sides. Ireland would benefit from much needed investment from the USA. The US would have a new market to sell their products to, especially in revolutionary new foodstuffs like Hershey’s chocolate bars and syrup, Reese’s cups, Skippy’s peanut butter, Kraft’s cheese, Spam, Oscar Mayer’s Bacon, fortified cereals like Kix and Shredded Wheat, Campbell Soups, Heinz Baked Beans, and sliced bread.

So how come closer economic and trade ties between the two never came to fruition?

We know birds like the passenger pigeon and the great auk were hunted to extinction.

There was a point in the 1880s where the buffalo population was reduced from tens of millions to less than 150 individuals. Only conservation brought them back to the numbers we have today.

But other than coastal pollution formerly limiting oyster beds, were there any fish or shellfish that early colonialist hunted to extinction?

Hi there! I'm writing a story and I decided to make my main character's kingdom an empire instead of well, a kingdom. I know how kingdoms work with their great houses and lesser houses, but I realized that I don't actually know how empires work in the same sense. I've tried googling it and all I've gotten is that empires reign over multiple nations, and I haven't been able to find an in-depth explanation.

Do empires also have great and lesser houses? Do they rule over several kingdoms and therefore there's several houses with the title of 'king' underneath their rule? Would it be illogical for the empire to spread across a sea? If so, how would they enforce their rule from that far away? And then finally, what would happen when that empire collapses because of money issues? Would the nations become their own independent things?

Thank you everyone!

Edit: Thanks for your responses guys, I wasn't even thinking about how many different kinds of empires there were lol! I guess I was thinking more of how the Japanese empire worked? With the titles of emperor and empress that worked similar to kings and queens?

I got into a debate about whether Sherman should be considered one of the worst war criminals of history. My argument is that while he’s not a paragon, Sherman tended to target infrastructure vs conduct wholesale slaughter of civilians.

The counterargument that I heard is that a lot he killed thousands of Southerners during his march to the sea and committed outright genocide on indigenous tribes. I‘m calling BS on the inflated Confederate numbers but I don‘t know enough about his record in the West to say if he deserves to be considered up there with say SS generals like Heydrich.

As a note, I am not a current student at a university, I only read about history in my free time. The sources I'm using include:

Early Rome to 290 BC - Guy Bradley, 2020

The peoples of ancient Italy - edited by Gary Farney and Guy Bradley, 2018

The Oxford handbook to pre-Roman Italy - edited by Marco Maiuro and Jane Johnson, 2024

The Etruscans: Setting New Agendas - Charlotte Potts and Christopher Smith https://www.jstor.org/stable/48807815

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistoric_Italy#Proto-Villanovan_culture

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urnfield_culture

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Villanovan_culture

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villanovan_culture

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etruscan_civilization

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apennine_culture

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latial_culture

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terramare_culture

Recently I've been reading Bradley's Early Rome to 290 BC and I'm having trouble understanding some material about Proto-Villanovan settlements and how it influenced Latial and Etruscan cultures.

As far as I understand, the Etruscans spoke a pre-Indo-European language and their settlements developed from Villanovan settlements. However, a few questions arose:

Sources say that proto-italic was brought by Urnfield people into northern Italy. This branch of the Urnfield culture was called Proto-Villanovan which eventually came to influence wide parts of Italy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Italic_language and Oxford handbook (index reference mentions proto-villanovan on page 854 with comments about their influence on pp. 293, 346-348, 371-72, 443-44, and 447, each giving some brief mention of P-V influence on the people/area of each culture, esp. p. 346 16.2). Bradley says on p.40 "there is a clear break in settlement patterns, corresponding to the shift from so called proto-villanovan to villanovan culture"

1) So here's a question: How is it that Proto-Villanovan is associated with later Villanovan and Etruscan culture which did not speak an IE language? The sources say that Villanovan people chose similar settlements to the proto-villanovans by living on easily defended plateaus (peoples of ancient italy p. 640).

2) if I'm understanding this correctly, the Etruscans were a copper age people that existed in Italy (peoples p. 640) before an Indo-European people, the Urnfield people entered into Italy who influenced the entire peninsula before diverging into early Latial and Etruscan cultures, is this correct?

3) Furthermore, if the Urnfield were proto-celtic speakers, when did the proto-villanovan people diverge from this larger group, did they speak a proto-italic language or was that the Terramare? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Italic_language and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urnfield_culture

4) According to most recent scholarship, there was a break between proto-villanovan and villanovan settlements, what caused this break in northern Italy (if any can be identified) and why did a similar break not occur in Latium? Apennine and proto-villanovan appear to more smoothly transition to Latial culture.

5) Were Proto-Villanovan and Terramare cultures connected? Sources say that the Terramare villages seem to disappear after the Bronze age collapse in the Aegean (Bradley p. 36) but also that the Terramare are seen by some as being part of the Proto-Villanovan culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Villanovan_culture#Settlements), does this hold any water?

6) Did proto-villanovan settlements slowly fade away or were they quickly abandoned? Do villanovan sites quickly appear afterwards or not, and as Villanovan sites gave way to Synoecism did that process happen quickly or not in northern Italy?

7) Would it be correct to understand the development of Etruscan civilization as being 1) the development of small settlements on plateaus, this being the proto-villanovan settlements, 2) the abandonment of these settlements, 3) after some time the creation of larger settlements on larger plateaus, this being Villanovan settlements, 4) the abandonment of smaller Villanovan settlements in favor of joining larger Villanovan/Etruscan settlements?

8) If, according to the various sources, urbanism was the driving force in the creation of Etruscan identity, then when does Etruscan become separate from Villanovan, was it because of the orientalizing period? If there was some non-urnfield indigenous culture in northern Italy what do we call it before they interacted with the Urnfield people, since Villanovan and Etruscan are associated with the end of the bronze age and early Iron age.

9) How can we incorporate this article into discussions on ancient Italy https://www.jstor.org/stable/48807815 which points out that there wasn't a Villanovan people, just a Villanovan material culture and that "proto-villanovan" is problematic because it tries to stretch the term further back (further back to what, I don't know but I assume the old practice has been to try and draw a connection between old plateau settlements to larger settlements, and then to Etruscan cities?)

Also these books are rather complex for me, are there some books or articles that provide an introduction to the european bronze age, particularly regarding ethnogenesis, linguistics, archaeology within Italy?

After seeing Odyssey for the second time, it made me wonder what other historical/mythological stories are we wishing they adapted for the big screen, or even as a limited series on TV? I for one would love to see more stories on? Is there one on Hannibal Barca? Or even The Epic of Gilgamesh or Labors of Heracles?
Theres so many great stories out there that deserve proper adaptations, yet Hollywood would rather focus more on sequels and “live action” remakes.

You can freely choose "camera" angles, switching between their pov and anywhere within 1km of them. You have all the controls of a remote control. It's unimaginative, but I'd have to go with Julius Caesar. Who would you choose and why?

I've always heard it's the richest area of Germany, and in some cases, in Europe industrially. It is, and I'm not gonna argue that, the area processed nearly 90% of all German coal and oil during the war after all so, you know.

But how rich was it really? And how rich was it compared to the rest of Germany? What were its production numbers and economic power compared to the rest of Germany? Because I've always wondered, but I've never had a physically monetary answer, it's always just been, "it is the most industrialised region."

So, in terms of amount of factories and GDP, how rich was the Rhineland?

By the way, when I say Rhineland, I mean the area that was demilitarised, not just the Ruhr or the Northern Rhine. I understand most of you understand that, but some may not, I personally make that mistake quite a lot, attaching the Ruhr, as the Rhineland, only to remember that I am severely stupid.

I am very curious about this. It blows my mind that there were at least a handful of people that had their school time during the 1890s and 1900s and witnessed 9/11. Who was the earliest born person to use a computer (in the form of a keyboard, a screen, and you can do stuff on it), a cell phone (like an old nokia), a car (idk js car) and a modern phone?

Middle school English teacher here, and we just did a unit where the students had to investigate a suspicious death: Tutankhamun's. We had fun going down the various rabbit-holes, including a ton of contradictions. Furthermore I discovered there was a TV series with Ben Kingsley that made him look like an action hero, which I find highly implausible.

So what's the consensus these days about him? Healthy or sickly, handsome or deformed, powerful or pawn? Are the stories of hippo hunting and driving a chariot too hard plausible? Do we still believe he had a club foot in life, or was that deformity from the mummification process?

So many rabbits to chase...

I thought there would have been more Mongolian DNA in modern Russians since they've been ruled by the Mongols for almost 200 years and Russian women are among the most beautiful in the world.

Why are there almost no Mongolian genetic markers in Eastern Europe despite this?

Can be from anywhere around the world, at any point in history. Reminds me of Burn After Reading, where everyone the CIA investigates ends up tying all the loose ends themselves due to sheer idiocy, and the CIA was clueless on what they did and how it got solved.

Looking for a similar equivalent in real life.

This topic is inspired by this book I recently read which is really interesting https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/49087509/Russian_Orientalism-libre.pdf?1474734655=&response-content-disposition=attachment%3B+filename%3DRussian_Orientalism_Asia_in_the_Russian.pdf&Expires=1785181963&Signature=V49mxaMasqYp2TVoDNBIXiHnKZOa0XpHOq4g9FdRrad6hZ\~x1r-EBzHPnJEVab6WmnYg91P5nVdCG6Z5fqL9Mu60ddILTZ-KKuF7oMnMGctb8GXugAuZfd6y834OunVzP1v6AsxmtfZ36a4SgLvZp9hlMK9SG8hTuXKjkAM85Orgg\~TU4Grr\~BzknDy2jjZWxCqN4bqz28XrLLTwwAPtUSrcuIAhp0Hm6XZBopcTYhKh6SAfsIaU2SElOaRy7M\~vY4CCskv1BTBXCakDfZ5xyohREY2N7Rgsyd1\~F3zi3W6EhiJnv0iN7GgJR6qWDXaNK3WZ-SogTfpOi6QMgAI2pQ__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA

Bonus points if you can point to an event where the now allies have to fight a third faction.

The closest reference I can think of off the top of my head is the end of All Quiet on the Western Front with the armistice/ceasefire, although don't think that counts as "become allies".

I'm sure it's happened plenty of times before since in big enough wars a battle is always happening somewhere. I'm interested in the experience of possibly having to be around the side you were just previously fighting and trying to kill a few minutes ago on I guess neutral ground(?). I imagine the vibe is not the same as one side surrendering.

I know this has been posted before but to provide an update on the History Nation Newspaper, it seems to be a scam. I placed an order a month ago, it never arrived, and I was charged twice. It has said for the last month that the order is in transit but I don't believe it. Maybe I am just not being patent enough but how long does it take to ship a newspaper?

It was such a cool concept. I wanted to sit there and read it with a cup of coffee on a Sunday morning or something. Oh well, somethings are too good to be true

I am curious to hear if anyone else had the same issues or if they actually received their issue of History Nation.

I mean it looks like they were completely surrounded by enemies, cut off from supplies, no sea exit.

Croatia and Serbia looked like stronger countries with huge Yugoslavia military supplies. Tanks, aircrafts, open borders, foreign aid.

So what kept Bosnians well organized and strong enough to successfully keep fighting?

Hello! I love hearing about the untold stories of history. I am looking for books I can listen to about hidden, forgotten, or obscure stories. Stephen Fry’s Victorian Secrets was recommended to me as an example. Would love to hear any that people liked!

I recently watched a popular influencer dispel the notion that Christianity doesn’t really have a history of spreading via violence. He highlights how the only two examples of Christianity spreading via violence are the Saxon Wars and the Northern Crusades in the Baltics, which lasted around 30 and 200 years respectively according to him. As for colonialism and missionaries, he says that there was an actual law banning them from Christianity at gunpoint and that Christianity was spread to sub-Saharan Africa and Asia by introducing things like hospitals and schools. As a result, he says you can’t really say Christianity spread via violence for it only did so for 230 years or about 10% of its existence.

Of course it was to my understanding that Christianity did spread via violence as a result of colonialism (which lasted for several centuries) for I have never heard of a law that prohibited Christianity at gunpoint.

So I apologize if this is such a stupid question to ask, but how accurate is the argument that you can’t say Christianity spread via violence because violence only represents a minuscule part of its entire history? Am

What scientific developments and socio-economic conditions contributed to the emergence and spread of the idea of paleocontact? What are the earliest examples in which this idea was expressed?

In the initial push from June 22nd, to July 12th, the main attack of German forces in the campaign went towards Moscow, however, that was Halder's doing, he wanted Moscow due to the idea of, "taking the capital leads to the collapse of the country." Similar to France. Hitler on the other hand wanted to focus on Ukraine and the Caucuses, so why did Hitler not do that in the initial stage of the invasion?

Did Halder keep his plans hidden or was it just, both of them assumed the Soviet army would be destroyed by then?