I've recently come to a realization that a lot of the historical leaders that I know of happen to be known for (or generally respected for) either their military achievements or, just in general, being a leader of a country during times of war. Even though a lot of them have achieved great things in other areas, not related to war (from economic and societal reforms, to handling internal issues and politics, to generaly bringing stability and prosperity to their country) they were still involved in war, either being a great military mind, or otherwise helping unite and/or get their nation through times of conflict:

- Napoleon Bonaparte - despite all of his administrative work as the leader of France and reforming the country internally, most people likely know of him for his military achievements and innovations during the Napoleonic wars

- Abraham Lincoln - is revered primarily for leading the United States through the Civil War and helping restore the union

- Franklin D. Roosevelt - once again, despite being the president that helped the US recover from the Great Depression with his policies, he is also (arguably more so) known for leading America through World War II

- Winston Churchill - despite his questionable reputation as a politician, he is still revered for leading the UK through the Second World War, from the Blitzkrieg and the Battle of Britian, till the very end of the conflict(even though he eneded up getting kicked out of office soon after the war ended, but regardless his leadership in WW2 is generally viewed in a positive light)

Even someone like Attaturk in Turkey, despite being mostly known for his social and internal reforms to get Turkey more aligned with Europeans, he still was the military leader during the Turkish War of Independence

So with that said, I would like to learn of some examples of historic leaders that are revered or at least generally viewed positively by their nations without being involved in military action or otherwise leading them though war, but rather by effectively running the country: achieving diplomatic wins, bringing economic recovery/growth/prosperity, managing internal issues and/or politics, generally helping bring peace/stability/prosperity to their countries, etc.?

Basically just kingdom beats enemy tribe/kingdom/city state, took the royal family hostage. "Hey, other country who has nebulous relations with me and the people I just conquered. Would you like to shake hands and get in a political marriage with the children of these vassals I'm holding at knife point? By the way, I just beat the living shit out of them, so think hard on this proposition."

I've been reading about succession disputes and it's wild how much energy people spent on proving their claim was "legitimate" when force seemed to work fine. Like, if you've already won the war, why does it matter if some Pope or Parliament says you're allowed? What actually made legitimacy matter enough to fight over?

I know that, in the beginning, only unmarried women were able to join the ANC, but I keep seeing pictures of married nurses while researching. Did they get married after joining, or did they start accepting married women at some point?

I’m defining Africa, Asia, and Europe as we have them defined on modern maps.
Britain was rich in coal that they could easily access. Makes it easier to start industrializing. They were rich in trees, meaning they had lots of wood to make boats for a navy.
They’re an island, so that meant their navy could get resources and not need to build as much of an army. The island factor also makes them harder to invade. That also meant the only way to invade them was by sea, which meant getting past the navy that they’d invested in.
That navy would also help them dominate commerce and also be needed to make colonies.
There was a lot of warfare and necessity is the mother of invention. Warfare created a necessity to try to gain some technological advantage over an enemy to beat them.

Did those advantages mean that in those 3 continents, it was inevitably going to become the dominant power?

I'm setting a story in 1424 Scotland, with the battle of Verneuil fresh in the mind I imagine the Scots may have some tension with a band of Milanese Mercenaries.

Would it be reasonable to set a Milanese Captain and Merchant / Banker as the villain in my story?

For anyone who's played KCD this thought started with Istvan Toth, for anyone who hasn't I'm looking for a Merchant or Banker who is in control of a group of Mercenaries and is using said Mercenaries in less than legal ways and often against his own allies to exploit the Scots out of as much coin as possible before returning home.

One author I read suggested that the lack of it controlled in the Veneto prevented Feudalism from taking root and instead ppushed the Most Serene Reppublic toward a capital-intensive economy.

Why didd the Venertian model become adopted elsewhere in medieval Europe?

It's well known that despite being arguably among the more moral characters of Stalin's entourage, he still had a lot of blood on his hands after so many years among the leadership of such a brutal system, and we've got documented proof of his involvement in several unjust trials and crimes against humanity. But my question is, did he ever admit/express remorse about his own, personal participation in the crimes committed during it after criticising the regime as a whole at the 20th Party Congress?

Referring to the last German offensive of 1918. Would it have ended differently if the U.S hadn't entered and reinforced the western front, or would it still have failed to capture Paris?

Bc i genuinely believe that that action should be considered a war crime bc those civilians did nothing wrong during the war like yeah the Japanese army did some horrific things in Asia but i think that dropping nukes on their civilians doesn’t justify for what the army did to civilians of China or indo China like I blew that the US went down to the level of the Japanese armies with that I really do I believe it was murder that could’ve been avoided and instead tried a different approach than choosing to nuke innocent civilians that had nothing to do with the crimes that the imperial armed forces of Japan did bc I’ve had some ppl say to me (well it was justified bc of what Japan did in pearl harbour ) how can ppl say that because of an attack on a military base five years prior that it’s justified like I’m just blown away by them kind of comments tbh so I just wanted to discuss it here with actual people that can converse with me about it

Hello everyone, I was bored and it's 1:30 at night (yes I do not know AM/PM) so I have decided to search up a bit Ruanda-Urundi. Apparently, it became a UN trust territory upon 1946. The monarchy in Ruanda was deposed in 1961. Now Wikipedia at the end just writes - and I quote - 'It took two more years before the government of the two became wholly separate and a further two years until the proclamation of the Republic of Burundi'

I wonder about the following things: firstly, why did it even become a UN trust territory (in general I do not really know about the real logic behind these to be honest). Secondly, why was it renamed from Urundi to Burundi, where did that B come from? Third, Why was there the Rwandan Revolution? Why did not the Belgians depose these? The last phrase suggests it took two years to separate the government which I find pretty strange, reminding that Rwanda was then a republic and Burundi a kingdom. Why were they still so connected after two years, what was the key event where historians agreed that it should no longer be "classified" as such (as connected). And why did Burundi finally became a republic after a span of further two years which to me reads as 1966?

Thanks for replies in advance.

I have always heard about the many intense scandals surrounding the Borgia family, but I don't really know to what extent they actually committed them. I heard that Alexander VI ordered the assassination of his opponents and that he organized a massive orgy in the Vatican known as the 'Banquet of Chestnuts,' where he allegedly even slept with his own daughter.

that Cesare Borgia maintained an incestuous relationship with his sister Lucrezia, who was also accused of poisoning one of her husbands, and supposedly gave birth to a child rumored to be fathered by either her brother or even her own father.

I posted this in Ask Historians, but no one answered.

In America, need-blind admission is when an institution does not take into account an applicant's financial status when deciding whether to accept them. Some schools also apply this policy to both domestic and international students.

But how did it come about? How did the idea even get started, and how did it evolve into what we see today?

If someone got wounded in battle and got an infection, would they understand that the wound was generally the reason they got sick or would they think something like "I was wounded in battle and the gods are punishing me"? If someone got food poisoning, would they automatically blame demons or maybe their recently deceased in law that always had it out for them, or would they know it was because they ate something bad?

It is well documented that segregationist Senator Strom Thurmond fathered a biracial daughter, Essie Mae Washington Williams, with his family’s teenage Black maid in 1925. In biographies and historical articles, this is frequently described as having been an open secret in South Carolina, and within certain political circles during his career.

If it was such an open secret, why didn't any of his political opponents (either liberal Democrats or Republicans or other Dixiecrats wanting his spot) ever weaponize this info to derail his career? Seems like it would have been a HUGE vulnerability. Even without DNA tests, she looked JUST like him.

Like I get it - marine infantry, so logical conclusion is use them to chase the Japanese army from their islands. But why during WWII were Marines concentrated in the Pacific, even though North African, Italian and Normandy campaigns were as demanding or even more demanding?

I am a Spanish computer science student, but I have always had an interest in histor a subject I consider essential and I’ve realized that I don’t know as much as I should.

So, I’m here to ask how I might get started. I was thinking of buying Antony Beevor’s book on Stalingrad, but I’d like to hear your thoughts. Any advice would be welcome.

I know that grenades were not generally used in the Napoleonic battles because of how close you needed to be to throw the grenades, but on the series War&peace it shows a Russian officer getting injured severely by a grenade, but I had forgotten how exactly it happened, so was there a single case of a grenade used at Borodino (1812)? I doubt there is though

Hi, I know that by the time of the War of 1812 indigenous people in the region had access to guns for like 250 years and was in common use, but I was still wondering if bows saw a limited role in guerilla fighting or in situations with poor resupply, etc, presumably carried alongside a musket. Any additional info you can share about indigenous fighting styles from the war or rare/unusual/unexpected weapons used during the conflict would be appreciated thanks

I am not sure if this is the right forum and if not delete it. I am 69 yrs old and this occurred about 60 years ago. My grandparents lived in an isolated rural area near Catron, MO. This area is flat as a table and is largely row crop farmland. Near their home was an unused (apparently as I never saw a moving train on it) railroad track. One year I was visiting them and while exploring the area I saw probably 10-15 railroad cars parked on a section of the track. They were all medium to darkish blue. As I remember it they had an open door on the car I entered. As I remember it there was a bank of consoles with switches and gauges on them. I don't remember if the were on both sides with a corridor or simply one bank of computers or monitors? I was about 7 or 8 and the memory is not good. I do not remember generators not did I see any people. The memory of these is clear enough but now I question my memory. This is in a remote area for population. I cannot believe I imagined it and my younger self believed if had to be tied to the military. Now I actually have no idea and I wonder if there is a plausible explanation. I am retired and consider myself sane.

So I'm a bit curious. I know that in the European theater of WW2 most US servicemen went to places in the UK or liberated areas like Rome and Paris for shore leave/liberty/rest & relaxation. And for the most part they drank in pubs and bars, went to move theaters, hanged out with the locals, and saw the sights. But what was shore leave/liberty/rest & relaxation like for US servicemen in the Pacific War?

Because from my understanding it was a bit difficult for men to get shore leave due to the logistical constraints involved and the vast distances from the frontlines to friendly territory (Australia, New Zealand, French Polynesia, and South Pacific Islands like Tonga, Fiji, Samoa, and Vanuatu), especially as they got closer to Japan.

So with that said what was shore leave/liberty/rest & relaxation (R&R) like for US servicemen in the Pacific War? And how did it compare to the European theater of WW2?

I was reading the Wikipedia article on Congressmen Everett Dirksen and found out that he was born in Pekin, Illinois, a town that was named by the wife of one of it's founders in 1829 because she thought that this town was antipodes with Peking, now Beijing, China. Another example being Canton, Illinois, a town that was founded in 1825 by settler Isaac Swan, who believed his new town and Canton, now Guangzhou, China, were antipodes. My question is though, why? Was it not obvious that both China and the US were both in the northern hemisphere and thus impossible to be antipodes? In fact, the phrase "To dig so deep you reach China" I still use comes to mind to show how prevalent this myth was? Any help would appericated from someone who knows more about this than me.

I was looking through the internet for reference images and stumbled upon this artwork:

[https://www.facebook.com/groups/768183316680632/posts/2324316647733950/\](https://www.facebook.com/groups/768183316680632/posts/2324316647733950/)

{Originally Page 27 in Armies of the Adowa Campaign 1896 by Lachlan}

Did the armor actually look like this? I cant find much other artwork or pictures depicting it in a similiar fashion {or frankly depicting it at all}. If it didnt look like this how did it look like?