Recent comments in /f/history

nola_throwaway53826 t1_j4vd8xz wrote

I am looking to start reading into military history that I am unfamiliar with. I've read a good deal on the World Wars, the American Civil War, the ancient Romans, and many others. I am looking to try and learn more about other conflicts that I know very little about. For instance, the Spanish American war. I know the highlights, but I am hoping that someone can recommend a good book going into the history on that. I am also interested in the French invasion and conquest of Algeria in the 1830's if anyone has any good books there.

If anyone has any recommendations about conflicts that they know about, but are not as widely known, I'd be interested in that as well.

I'd also be interested in any books on Imperial China and its conflicts as well. I can recommend one book there that I thought was interesting: Voices from the Ming-Qing Cataclysm. It's a collection of eyewitness accounts of the Qing conquest of Ming China. It can get into vivid detail about the sacking of cities, people trying to escape, the perils of road travel during the invasion and collapse of the government, it was very compelling.

One final book I will recommend on Imperial China is Emperor of China: Self Portrait of K'ang-Hsi. It's a collection of the documents by the Qing emperor K'ang-Hsi (sometimes read as Kangxi). Its well written, the prose is simple and easy to comprehend, and gives his thoughts on ruling, military affairs, meting out justice as an emperor, and more. Very interesting stuff.

4

p314159i t1_j4v426r wrote

>Why didn’t the Ottoman empire, which was Sunni Muslim, assist those helpless Sunni Muslims in Iran and elsewhere?

First of why would they? I know they were the Caliph but we all know that was basically just another hat the Sultan thought would be cool to wear alongside being emperor of the romans and all.

Second of all a rival empire on your borders intervening to "protect religious minorities from persecutions" would be ground for considering those groups disloyal and justifying a genocide against them, which is something the Ottomans would do themselves to christians.

In fact this is not new, the Roman Empire proclaimed themselves the protector of christians in the east and this pissed off the Sassanians to an endless degree and just invoked persecutions. Those were Zoroastrians but the pattern repeated itself regardless of what religion was actually dominate in the area. Zoroastrian, Christian, Sunni, Shia, didn't matter.

1

Rear-gunner t1_j4uuli2 wrote

Follow The Road Less Traveled: The Secret Battle to End the Great War, 1916-1917 by Philip Zelikow a fascinating study on Wilson in ww1 attempt to make a peace. While reading it I was wondering how much better the world would be if he had done it.

4

tatramatra t1_j4urkdy wrote

Correct. In the past people saw old documents in a very practical way and not as some artifacts of historical value. Same attitude applied to other things like architecture, tools, weapons and so on. It was natural for them to take an old thing and "improve" it as they saw fit.

1

tatramatra t1_j4ur08v wrote

Point been made is about Germany doing total mobilization of economy late, not that Germany did not switch economy to military footing. Those are too different things. Or it other words it's not about Germany not mobilizing it's economy, but rather about Germany not mobilizing it to the maximum.

Essentially claim is that Germany did not do maximum it could and did not use all resources it could to maximize military production earlier in the war. And that's evidenced by the fact that later in the war Germany indeed did it.

1

LateInTheAfternoon t1_j4uligh wrote

*fairly well. There are still a lot of conundrums. More to the point, the language here is not Old Norse but proto-Norse for which our knowledge is very limited partly due to the relatively few samples we have of the language, partly due to how much Old Norse has deviated from proto-Norse.

3

RevolutionaryLook585 t1_j4uli73 wrote

There are also way more people now than at any time in human history.

If this this accurate and it's 2000 years old, then the population of the earth at that time was around and 200m.

It's a very misleading statement, but obviously modern day slavery is horrific and should be condemned and annihilated.

3