In the war of the spanish succesion, France , Britain, and the United Provinces held a lot of peace talks before the end of the war.. Why did these peace talks not go through?

>what happened in 1989 in that one place in china I forgot then name pls correct me

If I tell you, I am going to lose a lot of Social Credit

Tianmen Square btw

[removed]

There is more to be found just across the fjord. Seen several mysterious mounds around Breiliflakene.

Not impossible, but it’s more difficult than you’d imagine, and the context of the finding would need to corroborate it.

Runes vary a lot geographically and over time, so if you find some runes that look completely different from the ones that you’d expect to find, it’s either a very strange carving or a forgery.

No, not at all.

But what would be difficult is finding a grave that’s two millennia old, putting your fraudulent runes tone into it and then covering it back up to the point that a professional archaeologist can’t notice.

Pretty sure Leonardo da Vinci was behind it becoming well known and widely used

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

Being that it's lines scratched into rock, would it be difficult to produce similar runes today, and age them to look as old as these do?

[removed]

[removed]

Good read. Recently visited the MLK museum and there were mentions of Muslim slaves, but nothing dived into more detail.

I hope the museum expands more on this and maybe has a special exhibit on it, I would love to learn more.

One thing that especially stuck out was that some churches in Georgia had been built to face East, which may have indicated that they were praying in the direction of Mecca, as Muslims still do today

[deleted]

The only caveat to this is that you then need to fast forward 1,000 years & as someone so removed from present day decide how you are going to categorize the study of North America in the 20th & 21st centuries.

These divisions are not made by people at the time, it's all done arbitrarily by historians hundreds of years later in order to aid the studying of the subjects.

There is an argument for the separation from the Roman Empire but it's not the points you are making. You are personifying an imperial state & statements like they didn't have respect for the latin empire is just plain wrong.

People who make the case it should be referred as the Roman Empire often give the argument that people themselves believed there was continuity & identified as Roman. What they forget is that historical naming conventions never take that into account, they are arbitrary dividing lines used to draw up history into manageable chunks & bring attention to significant monents of change, for example the decline of the Roman Republic. It's not a reference to people's identity.

However there is also a valid case to make that Byzantine Empire is a pejorative term that has too much negative baggage & should be discounted. The term itself has become an insult to refer to courts that are back stabbing, conspiracies & low morality. The consensus among historians is to refer to it as the Eastern Roman Empire & to do so at an earlier date, usually from Theodosius, to emphasise the continuity whilst still making the historical definition. Popular culture such as video games have not caught up with this however.

The exact definition of where you draw the line is difficult to identify clearly. It's not like the end of the Republic where we can draw a line when hereditary rule starts. Changes occur gradually by different emperors over hundreds of years. But there's no real need to be exact & articles with opinions on this are entertaining reads that anyone interested in the period would happily read so it's not exactly a problem. It's helped that Ancient Roman historians often get off the bus when he hit Constantine & the empire becomes Medieval in structure.

What we should really do, in my opinion, is make more divisions. Carve up the Roman Empire into several empires of different rise & falls. Harriet Flower has an excellent book that does this for the Republic arguing that Rome from a historian studying perspective had not a single republic but 6 distinct republics with definably different structures of govt, visible rises & falls and also experienced two interregnums where govt broke down.

Accepting that these lines are just divisions by historians & with that chopping individual periods up further would do alot to boost the study of those periods. For example historians look at Augustus's state and ask the question, how did the Roman Empire fall, they then start to talk about the Goths & migrations, disease, taxation still in the context of the Augustan Empire. This inevitably leads to historians giving all the change from Augustus to Honorius as a cause of the fall. This isn't correct, the question isn't framed right and should be always in the context of the Empire at the time which was very successful despite its differences. If we draw our lines here and say the Principate/Augustan Empire was its own distinct historical entity with a rise and fall that becomes easier then the smaller scope makes it easier to define. The Augustus Roman Empire fell during the crisis of the Third Century when the succession mechanism broke down. This line also gives us a nice valley for additional debate to flood. Maybe some revisionist historian wants to point out actually they can evidence it just took so many generations for inflation & economic damage to hit & succession wasn't a big part. Etc.

This is why we have these lines as historians & in my opinion the more the better.

By your logic Rome after 284CE or 312CE isn't Rome anymore either...

Ever since Joseon began to break up under the tension of foreign pressure, and ultimately, was absorbed into the Japanese empire, the Koreans had been divided over how to reshape a future Korea. The advent of marxist revolutionary ideologies certainly was not helping to reconcile different ideals.

Because those lines had fall back lines. So, in a sense, it limited gains made. They were however overall on the defensive during this period.

i dont know about any books that cover the war from that perspective start to finish, but there are plenty of great books about individual events. I personally am a fan of "The forgotten Army" by James Fenton and "Pegasus Bridge" by Stephen E. Ambrose.

Anyone know a book focusing on humans during the Stone Age? I'm super interested in that time period, before homo sapiens exsisted.

The Safavid dynasty, which was founded in the 16th century, was known for its strong Shia identity and its efforts to spread Shia Islam throughout its territory, which included present day Iran, Iraq, Azerbaijan, and other areas. As part of this, the Safavids engaged in religious persecution of Sunni Muslims, including acts such as killing or exiling Sunni religious leaders and scholars, destroying Sunni mosques and graves, and using intimidation and violence to force conversions to Shia Islam.

As to why they thought it was okay to kill Sunni Muslims, it's likely that the Safavids saw their actions as part of their efforts to spread and solidify Shia Islam as the dominant religion in their territory. Additionally, there was likely a political opponent to their actions, as the Safavids saw the Sunni population as a potential threat to their rule.

As for why the Ottoman Empire, which was Sunni, did not assist the Sunni Muslims in Iran and elsewhere, it's likely that the Ottomans did not have the resources or the interest to intervene in the affairs of another Muslim dynasty. Additionally, the Ottomans and the Safavids were rivals and may not have wanted to aid a population that could potentially be used against them.

Regarding the silence of major Shia scholars such as Mohammad-Baqer Majlesi, it's possible that they may have seen the Safavid actions as necessary for the spread and protection of Shia Islam. Additionally, they may have felt that it was not their place to challenge the actions of the ruling dynasty. It's worth noting that historians and scholars have different perspectives on the actions of the Safavids and it's a complex subject with many nuances.

The narrative that Germany's war economy started too late, in 1943 with Albert Speer, is based on the idea that the German economy was not fully mobilized for total war until that point. However, as you have pointed out, there are contradictions to this narrative. The Nazi-led economy, as early as 1933, was predominantly focused on rearmament. The German economy invested heavily in synthetic resource production and rationed crucial resources, similar to the Allied war economies. Additionally, the Wehrmacht exploited the economies of occupied countries to sustain the German war effort.

It is true that Hitler did not want a repeat of 1918, when the collapse of the home front contributed to the defeat of Germany. He sought to avoid this by building up his forces before general war broke out and by maintaining a certain level of economic prosperity during the "Golden Years" through rearmament drive. However, it is also true that the German economy was not fully mobilized for total war until 1943, when Albert Speer took over as Minister of Armaments and Munitions and implemented a number of measures to increase the efficiency and output of the German war economy.

One possible explanation for the coexistence of these two narratives is that while the German economy was heavily focused on rearmament and had some war-time characteristics, it was not fully mobilized for total war. This means that the German economy was not fully dedicated to the war effort, and many resources were not being used to their fullest potential. Furthermore, the Nazi regime was not willing to fully implement total war measures that would have required a complete mobilization of the economy and society. Additionally, the exploitation of occupied countries economies was not enough to sustain the German war effort.