Hi there,

I am curious why other people on this subreddit read about and study history.

I have not taken a history class in a long time: it is a hobby for me. I study history because I like to read about interesting people and events, and because I enjoy understanding things.

The best part of studying history is when I finish a history book. When I do, I find that my brain automatically goes in reverse over everything I have learned from that book. It connects all of those facts I learned to one another, and to facts I have learned about the past or the present from other sources. It is very cool when it happens.

What is your reason for studying history? Is it a hobby for you? Are you in school? Is it for your job?

Thank you.

Bit of a reverse of the earlier question about monarchs who had prosperous reigns in spite of being personally incompetent/uninterested rulers.

I'm talking about figures like Maximilian of Mexico, who by most accounts was well-intentioned and fairly competent, but was building on quicksand due to tying his fate to Napoleon III's French occupation of Mexico. He ultimately wound up shot and his monarchy a complete failure.

What if sea levels hadn't risen and Doggerland wasn't lost beneath the waves? Which nation rules Doggerland? What else might have happened?

Stability, peace, general increase in quality of life. Not all of it happens due to one man’s excellence, sometimes it happens despite their destructive tendencies. Can you name me such an example?

Yugoslav communism was very different to Soviet communism, it was much more decentralised and it had elements of capitalism. And yet, it ended up failing.

Was the economic system itself intrinsically unsustainable, or was it just a victim of political instability?

Just to be clear, I'm talking specifically about the economic system, I'm obviously not going to dispute that living under a totalitarian dictatorship was bad.

I’m trying to find information about a 1930s publication called Nippon to America, an English language magazine, possibly published in Japan (but maybe in the U.S.?) Any advice about tracking it down?

Thanks. Preferably pre-Raj.

I've been reading up on various UN general assembly resolutions since the organization's formation and I was surprised to see India vote in favor of recognizing the PRC as China. I assumed India would abstain or vote against because of the tense India-PRC relations after the 1962 border war.

Like Persia. It's the Achaemenid empire or the Safavid empire. China aswell. But European countries are largely not treated like this. Why?

If Nazi Germany never invaded the Soviet Union in 1941, (as impossible as that might’ve been considering Hitler’s obsession with the east) and preserved their strength to fully commit to the invasion of the U.K, would it have succeeded?

I know the Luftwaffe lost the Battle of Britain in 1940, and that the Kreigsmarine was no match for the Royal Navy. But my surface level assessment leads me believe with the millions of men and countless resources committed to the Eastern front. If the desire was there, could the Germans have used them instead for a Round 2 against the British, round 3 even? Would it have succeeded? (Obviously I’m glad it didn’t)

I would like to study History at university, my favourite era of history is Germany from 1871-1945 but I can’t find many universities offering modules on that sort of period, does anyone know any universities which do?

As the question states: What kind of personality was Holy Roman Emperors Frederick II? But also, what made him such a brilliant ruler? Is he truly deserving of his nickname, the Stupor Mundi or the Wonder of the World?

Not wrong per se, but the NYT Atlas of World History, published in 1990, says the Sveta Huna were a subdivision of the Hephtalites, a theory that has since been refuted.

A biography of Brazilian inventor Alberto Santos Dumont, published in 1986, says Theodore Roosevelt was elected US President in 1909, in a chapter explaining the events of the Belle epoque Santos Dumont lived in. TR was actually elected vice president in 1900, took office after McKinley's assassination the following year, won election for a full term in 1904, and unsuccessfully sought a full term in 1912.

I've read that after the civil war ended, the south found many ways to keep African Americans enslaved in all but name or just oppressed in the best cases and Lincoln's successor, Johnson wasn't interested in protecting African Americans so much of the progress during Lincoln's time was erased, but also the presidents after Johnson even if they were Republicans weren't that much better and Lincoln himself had said he didn't believe in the equality among races. So my question is had Lincoln survived how much he would have helped African Americans and what failures of the reconstruction era were "inevitable"?

Bit of a variation on the overasked 'best general in history' question.

Which generals were utterly incompetent and yet somehow wound up in command of armies again and again? I don't mean one hit wonders like Publius Quinctilius Varus, who got decisively defeated in one major setpiece battle and then promptly died.

I mean guys like Luigi Cadorna, who launched no fewer than eleven Battles of the Isonzo that were incredibly costly at very little gain. He also constantly blamed his own failings on his subordinates until he was removed from command after the Battle of Caporetto, during which the Germans and Austro-Hungarians broke through his frontlines and nearly captured Venice.

Ok, so according to several google results, Tuesday is chosen because of the process of elimination:

• Not Sunday because people need to attend church; not Wednesday because it's Market's day
• Used to take one day to reach the nearest poll station, so not Monday and Thursday either as people can't make it in time after church service/ Market's day on Sun/ Wed.

Here's what I don't get, if the election is on Tuesday, wouldn't people miss the Market's day on Wednesday since they need one day to return from the poll station? (Or at least return to home say around mid-day and miss the early part of the Market's day)

Besides, isn't Friday the perfect choice based on the above logic? After Wednesday's market's day, start traveling on Thursday and arrive the poll by Friday. Then return to home in leisure pace, knowing that they have more than enough time to reach home before Sunday's church

Is it true that the trade volume of non-fiat economies cannot expand beyond their ability to back the trade with bullion? And following on that, was that necessity a factor in the need of expansion of empires (Rome, Britian, Spain) as they needed to secure more gold & silver mines?

From my understanding, much of the various ethnic groups from the Caucus Region managed to remain in their respective lands despite conflicts they experienced during the expansion of the Russian Empire. How come the Circassians got the short end of the stick and were basically wiped out from their homeland forcing them to become a diaspora?

Why did Spartacus change course at the alps and march north instead of escaping Italy? Having freedom within reach for him and his slave army and then turning around is something I struggle to find the answer to, I’m not sure there is a definitive answer but there must be some factors that led to this and ultimately the army’s defeat. I get the relentless pursuit from Crassus may have made escape difficult, but he seemed so close to his goal and to all but abandon it. Was it because he wanted to free more slaves and had the hopes of defeating the pursuing Romans?