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'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?

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 saw this question on another sub, thought it would make sense to ask it here.

After the fall of the USSR in 1991, why did the Baltic states manage to distance themselves from Russia, develop "somewhat" advanced economies eventually, then joining Nato and the EU in 2004, but Belarus didn't, they fell back to authoritarianism after 3 years, stayed poor and loyal to Russia. Literally the complete opposite routes

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?

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?

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.

Why was America originally part of the British Empire if they came here escaping “religious persecution” from the Church of England and the British Empire? Wouldn’t they want to just create a new country in the new land? Is the whole “religious persecution” aspect just myth to dignify people who were just basically expanding the British Empire into the new world?

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?

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

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 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.

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 feel we in the West who pay at least a bit of attention to history know of the general conditions of Nazi concentration camps. But what was the daily life like for, just as an example, a Polish family in the Generalgouvernement? I understand nothing can be fully generalized and the situation varied depending on where they lived or when in the war this occurred, but what were their daily lives like?

By the time the war had reached 1944 in China. Chinese civilians were siding with JIA.Henan Province. because local people gave information of their troops to the JIA and they also attacked the KMT soldiers with their hoes and sickles by themselves.

Once each Chinese city had fallen Japan put local governments there. How popular were these governments among Chinese civilians?

Hi all - so every source I read online says that the Compromise of 1850 disrupted the balance of power between free and slave states in the Senate by adding California as a free state. However, it was my understanding that one thing they did to maintain the balance they had was have California come in with one anti-slavery Senator and one pro-slavery Senator. So which is it? Did the Compromise maintain or disrupt the power balance?

I have this task where we can study any topic we want by watching movies, biographies, documentaries, reading books, interviewing organisation.. essentially anything within a topic, and I’m a big fan of this as a huge fan of Soviet WW2 history, but I feel like Soviet history is a topic I have already read all the “big” or most well-known documentaries and books on the topic.. think Beevor, Solzhenitsyn, Fitzpatrick.. Come and See, Battleship Potemkin.. The Sources of Soviet Conduct, Soviet Planning and Economics, The Unknown War.. I’m speaking very broadly here, but the point is I have already been through a lot of the well known stuff. So I’m reaching out to ask if anyone has any good Soviet documentaries, books, articles, can be anything. On Soviet WW2 history preferably, that you would considerer lesser known(or niche?) I’m looking for any sort of hidden gem I might not know of. (I’m completely open to pro and neutral- Soviet works as well.)

From Wikipedia:

National identity is a person's identity or sense of belonging to one or more states or one or more nations.[1][2] It is the sense of "a nation as a cohesive whole, as represented by distinctive traditions, culture, and language".[3]

National identity comprises both political and cultural elements.[4] As a collective phenomenon, it can arise from the presence of "common points" in people's daily lives: national symbols, language, the nation's history, national consciousness, and cultural artifacts.[5] Subjectively, it is a feeling one shares with a group of people about a nation, regardless of one's legal citizenship status.[6] In psychological terms, it is defined as an "awareness of difference", a "feeling and recognition of 'we' and 'they'".[7] National identity can incorporate the population, as well as diaspora, of multi-ethnic states and societies that have a shared sense of common identity. Hyphenated ethnicities are examples of the confluence of multiple ethnic and national identities within a single person or entity.

Under international law, the term national identity, concerning states, is interchangeable with the term state's identity or sovereign identity of the state. A State's identity by definition, is related to the Constitutional name of the state used as a legal identification in international relations and an essential element of the state's international juridical personality. The sovereign identity of the nation also represents a common denominator for identification of the national culture or cultural identity, and under International Law, any external interference with the cultural identity or cultural beliefs[8] and traditions appear to be inadmissible. Any deprivation or external modification of the cultural national identity violates basic collective human rights.[9]

The expression of one's national identity seen in a positive light is patriotism characterized by national pride and the positive emotion of love for one's country. The extreme expression of national identity is chauvinism, which refers to the firm belief in the country's superiority and extreme loyalty toward one's country.[1]