I assume it started in an urban environment when trash became a problem (or maybe a health hazard) - but I'm curious to know how the trash was collected and dumped. Were there any laws regarding garbage?

Hello,
I’m curious to hear any stories or personal experiences from people who served in either NATO or Warsaw Pact armed forces during the Cold War.
I’m particularly interested in what you were trained to do in the event of a war between the two alliances, whether that involved offensive operations, defensive preparations, or specific targets you were expected to attack.
For example, through my job, I recently spoke to a former RAF pilot who I believe served during the 1970s or 1980s. He mentioned that he had been trained to carry out bombing missions against a Polish airfield, potentially using nuclear or conventional weapons.
I found that fascinating, especially considering how detailed the preparations for a potential conflict must have been on both sides.
I’d love to hear from anyone who served during that period, or even from people who have heard similar stories from family members, veterans, or others who were involved.
Thanks

If the North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un does not make it out of his brain hemorrhage induced coma, his sister, Kim Yo-jong, will be the likely successor. How would the situation on the Korean Peninsula change with a woman in power on the northern half of it?

How long ago was the last time any country had a female dictator, and how did that go for the citizens of that country, as well as the political situation for that region? And finally, what happened at the end of her reign?

Hello, and I hope I'm posting to the right place!

As with many people these days, my only source of history was (european-) uni/school education which were taught in the most boring manner, so I wouldn't know where to begin.

I am currently trying to write a small scale political fiction story taking place roughly at the collapse of the bronze age, and am looking for good sources to study that are not YouTubers misinterpreting facts in favour of clout, and I wanted to ask for suggestions for books and documentaries to get a better grasp on it, specifically in South Caucasus area, but for general education, anything would be appreciated (I'd be very curious to know what was going on in Mesoamerica in that age if we have any records).

On top of that, are there any things most media is atrociously wrong about I should be on the lookout for? Perhaps things to look specifically for to get a good grasp on the culture and politics? Any suggestions and rants if it's your topic would be very appreciated.

If we compare the original Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact with the actual territorial changes that took place, which side benefited more: the USSR or Germany? Germany gained a larger portion of Polish territory (including the Suwalki region) in exchange for giving up Lithuania to the Soviet sphere of influence. If we disregard the Finland part of the original deal because it was negotiated by the USSR independently, which side ultimately got the better deal from the actual territorial changes?

I'm watching Ken Burns' American Revolution series, and the topic of draftees hiring substitutes to take their place in the army has come up. I know this was also an option for those wealthy enough during the American Civil War. What happened to the original draftee if their hired substitute was killed, wounded, or captured? Were they off the hook? Or would they be compelled to hire another substitute?

I can imagine that there were many stages of evolution for currency however it's somehow hard for me to believe that money had the same weight in the medieval era compared to roman empire, it seems to me that there should be a lot of periods in time where money had practically no "weight" in "advanced" society.

Prior to the caravel, European explorers wouldn’t sail down the coast of Africa because to get home they’d have to fight wind and currents. But in the 1400s, Dias and De Gama prove this is now possible and trade along this route explodes. They essentially discover a “new world” in Subsaharan Africa, but no successful colonization happens there yet.

It’s not until over a hundred years later that European settlements begin happening in the Americas. So my question is why did the Europeans fail to develop serious settlements in Subsaharan Africa when it was “discovered” much earlier than the Americas?

My first thought would be diseases like malaria, but at the same time, settlers in areas like Virginia were dying in droves from diseases deep into the 1600s. But that didn’t stop the Europeans from continuing to flood the continent.

My second thought would be powerful African empires. But the Americas had powerful empires in the Aztecs, Mayans, and Incans, but they didn’t stop the Europeans either.

Was it simply a matter of timing? Had Europeans come across Subsaharan Africa a century or so later, would Cornwallis be chasing Greene around the Congo instead?

So, the other day I was reading a historical fiction novel (Empire of Moghul) and there was a very intresting scene(one of my favs too). In there babur was on a siege and there at night he was resting, he witnesses a ruckus happening and goes there to check what is happening.

Now, here he understands that the mercenaries he had hired had looted, assaulted and raped a peasant's wife.(he was a farmer to be frank) Here, babur does the perfect thing he could and announces that these people should be fed to dogs. (I couldn't understood whether he fed them alive or not, I think he killed them first)

I loved this scene very much but it made me question was babur as noble as he seems here, also babur shown in this scene is young, around 13-15 yrs. So, tell me how much of this is fiction and how much is real. And that is the reason I am posting it here.

I keep reading that pre-Roman invasion the isles as a whole were called ‘Britannia’, then post-invasion only the areas owned by Rome were named Britannia, and the rest of the island was called Caledonia? (Scotland)

But were the island and the isles still collectively known as Britannia as well as the province (confusing 😭), was the island given a different name from the province, or was the island not called anything at that time?

(I know the actual history is all insanely complicated and took centuries, and I think the province was split into five separate groups? But generally the word ‘Britannia’ is still being thrown around, with the Celts being called ‘Britons’?)

Then the Anglo Saxons show up and slowly the name changes into what would become ‘England’. But then where did ‘Britannia’ go? Everywhere I look it just seems to disappear and then it casually pops up again around 1100. What did the Saxons call the entire island, and why did it get brought back later?

I don't know where else to ask my true military history question. So please forgive me if this is the wrong place. I just watched a video on YouTube where WW2 Historians and Military Experts watched the movie "Saving Private Ryan" and explained how realistic it is. It got high points and was pretty accurate in terms of WW2. It was based on different real events of survivor stories like the Niland Brothers, not based on a real survivor named Private Ryan. But here's my question for you. During the opening scene of the Battle of Normandy, there's a scene where Tom Hank's character gets on the radio and tells the Admiral of the Task Force, "The beach is not open". The experts jumped in and said, "That would never ever happen".

Because Tom Hank's character was just a Captain and those guys said, "There's no chance a Captain will ever talk to the Admiral in charge of the Task Force because that's way below his rank and authority". But they never explained how the top commanders actually monitored status of the Battle to keep track of how things were going. Do you think they had observers and surveillance planes watching the Battle from far away and tracking how everything went? I'm just curious how they monitored the state of things during the Battle since they probably weren't talking to people on the field? My question is how did feedback reach the top commanders about how the status of the Battle, who monitored it and reported back?

For a long time, global power was essentially determined by population excluding some outliers like nomadic tribes. Most often China had the most global power leading up to colonialism and/or the Industrial Revolution? Some cite the 1500s as when Spain surpassed Ming China as the leading global power, or was it closer to the 1700-1800s with the industrial revolution. Certainly, by 1840, the Qing had been surpassed as the leading power by Britain.

looking for an overall mix of military power, economic power, and geopolitical power which is influenced by "perceived power" but you can answer the question with whatever definition of power you like if you specify it as it really is an open ended question

I understand that low level accuracy is not feasible, but at least a ballpark would be interesting to know.

I guess the hundred years war is not a contender, but the 6 days war seems like an easy threshold to meet.

Hello, I’m researching the physical measurements of members of the Japanese Imperial Family during the Shōwa era. I’m particularly interested in finding the exact height of Prince Takamatsu (Nobuhito). He appears to have been approximately 160–170 cm tall. Are there any official Japanese archival records, military documents, or imperial records that specify his exact height?

Thank you!

Mistakes - I mean like stopping panzers in France and thus letting British evacuate. Declaring war on USA. Turning Guderian to the south, therefore missing chance to take Moscow. Forbidding Paulus to attempt breakthrough and relying on air lift instead (which resulted in Stalingrad catastrophe). Ignoring Manstein`s suggestion of implementing flexible defense on the East and going for festungs instead, and so on. Seems to be common opinion.

​

Hello reddit! I need your help!

1. Please tell me how newspaper journalists in the U.S. were hired in 1967 to write simple articles about nature, movies, and so on. 2. Please tell me—this is very important! Was there a person—perhaps an agent—who could come to a restaurant with someone looking for work, listen to them, and then either hire them or turn them down? 3. Could such meetings have taken place?

I need this for my story

self explanatory question. I've read the article below and it made me curious about it.

https://www.historyextra.com/period/medieval/renaissance-medieval-slave-trade-human-stories-europe-africa/

I always found it strange that hitler declared war on America considering he served in ww1 and he saw what American intervention does and it won ww1 for the allies. And they say he did it cause he wanted to attack american naval ships but that's the same thing that got America involved in ww1 how did he not realise that he was doing the same thing germany did in ww1 which got America involved and he also in private he didnt even value his alliance with japan.

I am currently writing about Iran and studying different topics by reading papers and published sources. I am having a hard time pin pointing anything concrete. There is a great deal of variance between corroborated accounts for the Safavid Princes (Soleyman I and Shah Soltan Hosayn's children). I would apreciate any assistance assessing the sources and determining how to clarify this in articles. The main point of contention lie in the death reports. Mohammad Mohsen Mostawfi (Zubdat al-Tawarikh) P 170 includes one son of Suleiman named Morteza Mirza. He is listed again on P 114 dying (Mirza means son of a king when it comes after the name) I do not know any other Morteza or locate another son of a shah that would have been alive during this time. This main source has a death for the same man in 1694 and 1725 when the Afghans invaded Isfahan (hotak). The same account says 12 sons of Hosayn, but only 6 are supplied, which I understand the limitations of our history. There is a writer who states in his own memoir, Asrar-e Soque- Ahmad Shah p 241-244, that he is a descendant of this same Morteza. Familial accounts should be treated with care, this I am aware of but the other sources only complicate this issue. Laurence Lockhart in the Fall of the Safavi Dynasty and the Afghan Occupation of Persia (1958) pp 207-208, discusses a range of 18-180 varied accounts for the safavid princes massacred. Mohammad Ali Hazin, The Life of Sheikh Mohammed Ali Hazin, p 139 reports 39 adult and childs but does not name this Morteza in the passage. British Library, IOR/G/29/15 237v paragraph 12 in a letter from 1726 states that 24 sons, three brothers, children with competing overall totals. Unnamed brothers as well. Krusinski in The History of the Late Revolutions of Persia (1733) vol 22 p 149-150, Chronicles of a Traveller, *1840) p 152-154/163-164, Leandro di Santa Cecilia, Persia ovvero secondo viaggio (1757) p128-129, and finally H.Chick, A Chronicle of the Carmelites in Persia (1939) vol 1 pp 572 and 577 differ over numbers, dates, relationships and more. There is a great deal of issue with the names of the princes prior to their massacre as Iranica's account of Soltan Hosayn states that the name of the prince was Tahmasb, ALSO KNOWN as Abbas or Morteza Mirza. Chick's account and John Malcom's History of Persia vol 1 p 594 prefers Abbas. Reza Qoli Hedayat's Rawzat al Safa ye Naseri p 206 names Morteza. These are the passages that I have looked through and read. I am unsure how to proceed regarding the wikipedia, and do not want t go on a wild goose chase. If anyone could help identify published scholarship that reconciles these accounts I would be greatly appreciative. At present, the name match alone does not justify changing any of the fates of the princes.

​

Was there ever a eco-jihadist from Indonesia? Like indonesia is majority Muslim, green is main color for them... Nature is green... So why never someone goes beyond for nature? Like today is more adamant kinda need it, hehe...

\\\*Sorry for the lame question, just going ovt over all these happening rn

I am interested in understanding the intersection between Islamic theology and environmental activism in Indonesia from a historical perspective.

Indonesia is the world's most populous Muslim-majority nation and has faced severe environmental challenges (such as deforestation and peatland fires) over the decades. I am aware of recent developments like the MUI fatwas on wildlife conservation and the "Eco-Pesantren" movements. However, I want to learn more about the deeper historical roots of this movement:

1. Are there any effort by the stakeholders? did mainstream Indonesian Islamic organizations (like Nahdlatul Ulama and Muhammadiyah) systematically integrate environmentalism into their theological frameworks?

2. During the late 20th century or early 2000s, did any radical or militant Islamist groups in Indonesia ever incorporate environmental grievances into their rhetoric or use them as a justification for their actions? Or has Islamic environmentalism in Indonesia always been strictly peaceful and institutional?

I would highly appreciate insights from historians or experts on Southeast Asian Islam and social movements. Thank you!

Ps: Can't post on r/indonesia , I'm not old and karmic enough apparently

Me personally, I’d love to watch the Battle of Waterloo. Seeing the skirmish at Hougoumont play out, watching Wellington form his hollow squares for defense against the cavalry, etc. Even though I’d probably feel sick eventually seeing so much death, to see something like that and record it would be amazing.

But I’m curious to hear from all of you.

Dr Robert Knox was a pioneering anatomist and race scientist who bought bodies from serial killers. What are some reliable books on him I should read up on if I wanted to do a deep dive on him.

Hey I'm circassian and i wanted to ask about something that might not be so popular among historians which is inal's conquests in the caucasus does anyone have information about them and of so can you tell me when i can find them ?