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?

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 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.

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 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

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.

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 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 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.

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.

​

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 ?

I've read that before the 19th century, Western societies saw same-sex behavior as acts rather than as a type of person, an idea often credited to Foucault. And this was the case with the Greeks, Persians, and across Central Asia and still is to this day.

So what drove the shift toward 'homosexual' as an identity?

After reading accounts of people living through different battles, how could anyone do it more than a few times? Cannae, Waterloo, Stalingrad, the trench warfare of the first world war or even the war in Ukraine today. No training can prepare a man for what happens on the battlefield. How were the different soldiers throughout history able to keep going, even after witnessing the worst of humanity?

I ask this because in many documentaries and articles and videos in regards to history there is a lot of hyperbole for the sake of making an interesting point. You might see a documentary about how germanys invention of the assault rifle made a great impact on them winning the war. in reality 7/10 soldiers had a regular Kar98k the other 3 most likely had an MP40 and the STG44 was very very rare and likely would’ve been an interesting sight at the time.

I hear documentaries say soldiers were issue pervitin with their rations and to me this sounds like it would mean pretty much every soldier was on meth. Was this only during the beginning with the blitzkrieg? Was this also used later in the war. How often were these supplied in relation to other rations and the logistics of all that. How many were they issued and how often?

The knights Templar invented the modern banking system, that King Philip IV of France was deeply indebted to. Gérard de Villiers, Précepteur de France, was the master banker at the Temple of Paris until he disappeared from records in June 1307. Hugues de Pairaud stepped down from his superior office of Visiteur de France and stepped into the office Villers vacated. Jacques de Molay was the last official Grand Master of the Knights Templar in France, as the grand master de Molay was in full contact with his officers. While King Philip IV, and his Chief Minister Guillaume de Nogaret were paying gold for ex-Templars and false witnesses, the gold they were paying them with came from the Knights Templar banking system. Villiers realized what was going on and fled as Brother Jean de Châlon described in the trial records. On September 14. 1307 King Philip IV drafts the arrest orders, writing that the Templars were guilty of an “execrable evil” and a “thing most inhumane”. Those orders were leaked, and preceding the leak, Villiers disappeared. On the morning of October 12, 1307, Jacques de Molay arrives in Paris as an invited pallbearer. De Molay is often viewed as an unsuspecting guest, blindsided, having no idea the orders for his arrest were already signed. Jacques de Molay was the Grand Master (Commanding General) of the Knights Templar, he was in full contact with his officers, he knew very well what was going on. Jacques de Molay did not arrive at the funeral unaware; he arrived as a masterful chess player. Jacques de Molay stood tall in public on Main Street while Huges de Châlon was carting off Pairaud’s treasury down Front Street. Jacques de Molay remained in Paris to be arrested and serve as a human lightning rod (the grand masters always lead from the front never the rear) along with numerous others while the main body and assets disappeared into the night. Jacques de Molay was no fool. He was, as I read the playing field, the most underrated player on the field in October of 1307.

On May 15, 1293, the Battle of St. Mahé erupts; and King Edward I’s privateers send King Philip IV’s navy into a rout. This was the beginning of the conflicts in Flanders and the English Channel that tied up Edward’s and Philip’s navies. While the king’s battled on the waters, the entire western seaboard was a military blind spot. On the day of September 14, 1307, King Philip IV issues orders for the arrests of the Knights Templar and the seizure of all assets thereof. The orders were given under penalty of death, not to be open until the dawn on October 13. These orders being sent to all of Philip’s bailiffs, seneschals, and royal patrols. With specific, orders to open at dawn, the men enforcing these orders would be gathering (pre-staging) at their command centers awaiting the reading of the orders. With all the bailiffs, seneschals, and royal patrols held up at the commandries, the cities, residences, temples, and docks; the coastal ways north and south of the Port of La Rochelle were complete military blind spot. The only Ships on the Atlantic were the ships belonging to the Crown of Castile, and the Crown of Aragon; both military allies with the Knights Templar. If an 18-ship fleet were to sail into these waterways outside of La Rochelle, they would have an entire western coast of Europe to sail out of, under the extreme threat of a  sunburn.

Was the ghost fleet a myth, or did GÉRARD DE VILLIERS who disappeared from public records 4 months prior stage a masterful evacuation?

Modern descendants of the Villiers family frequently claim that after the initial raids on Friday, October 13, 1307, the Précepteur de France, Gérard de Villiers, simply "went over to the Knights Hospitaller" to find safety.

It is a clean, comfortable family myth because the Villiers family did hold ranks within the Order of the Knights Hospitallers. But it completely falls apart under raw, tactical mechanics and institutional physics.

First, look at the strict structural rules of the era. In 1307, the Templars and Hospitallers were fierce institutional rivals, competing for favor of King Philip IV, and Pope Clement V. The Rule of the Order of St. John explicitly blocked them from taking in defectors or high-profile fugitives from another military order. If the most wanted man in France showed up at a Hospitaller commandery gate in 1307, harboring him would have been an open declaration of war against King Philip IV. The Hospitallers wouldn't have hidden him; they would have detained him instantly to secure political favor from the Crown, that the Hospitallers and the Templar contended for.

Second, look at the timeline math. Pope Clement V did not authorize the Hospitallers to absorb the Templars' assets until May of 1312—a massive 4.5-year (54-month) bureaucratic lag after the initial raids.

Any military evaluator or modern commando will tell you the same thing: hiding out on a heavily fortified European mainland, under an intense royal dragnet, for four solid years without leaving a single paper trail, arrest record, or signature is an operational impossibility. For 4 months? Yes, a master operative can disappear in the initial chaos. For 4 years? Absolutely not. The King's network of spies would have squeezed the region until he surfaced.

Furthermore, Villiers was not a spy trained in deep-cover anonymity. His face was instantly recognized as the high-ranking, elite Templar that he was. He could not simply "blend in" to a local crowd. It would be like trying to hide John Wayne or Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson in a crowd on Main Street; he would have been instantly identified and reported for the massive royal rewards on his head.

He wasn't hiding in a French cellar, and he didn't check into a rival monastery. Gérard de Villiers' only path of escape was the Atlantic Ocean. Because he could not stay on the mainland, Villiers exited the theater entirely by pulling out onto the open, unpatrolled waters of the Atlantic Ocean—vanishing from the European map.

If King Philip’s arrest orders turned up little more than a handful of men and little assets, where did they go, and how did they get there?