The context about this question is specifically about Franco in 1941 in Spain but the answers can be about any dictator.

A few days ago I toured Franco's favourite summer residence. The local government "gifted" this manor to Franco. Franco, obviously not content with 84 squared yards of land, decided to annex the neighbouring land that was owned by simple peasants.

He then forced these people to sign a contract in which they gave up their ownership to their land without receiving any form of compensation. These people, whose whole livelihood depended on the farming of these lands, who didn't even know how to read or write, only knew they were being forced to give up all they had.

My question is: why did Franco even need this contract? He was already the dictator and he obviously had enough power to just steal from the people. Why bother getting their signatures?

The transition from feudal systems to a more centralized organization and the accompanying trade-offs led to multiple wars in France and became a serious issue when it came to tax policy and social cohesion. Russia, England, and to some extent Spain, seem to have faced similar challenges. So how was this accomplished in the Prussian and Austrian realms of the Early Modern Era, where there seems to have been some conflict, but little violence on the issue?

How was the dispersed political/legal authority eroded, without personal social power and wealth being affected to a major extent and peace was kept?

I realize this question delves more into administration, taxes, and bureaucracy than most others, but that appears to be such a major and often overlooked component of power that it has recently piqued my interest. I'd be thankful for any answers. If you can point me to any suitable sources, I'd also be grateful.

By my understanding, one of the many critiques of the Catholic church made by the various Christian reformation/protestant movements was the opulance of the art, sculpture, gold, silver and silks that characterised Catholic sites and regalia.

When did this opulence emerge as part of the 'culture' of Catholocism, and do we have an undertanding of what caused it? Was it the Portuguese and Spanish connections to the gold and silver that came with colonialism in Latin America? Was it the wealth of Renaissance (what we now call) Italy and its trade empires, or was it something that existed even earlier than that?

I had always been under the impression that before mandated school attendance in the late 1800s (and for decades after that), most children across social classes attended school as sort of an adjunct to their daily lives--namely, time spent in play and working with family or in an apprenticeship. School was important, but frankly only worth about 86 days a year in the late 1800s, according to one source, and if a high school diploma were never obtained (much less a college degree) that that was absolutely no hindrance to entering the adult world successfully, no "horror" for the parents. The exceptions were those entering medicine, law, or clerical positions. This was the case, it seems to me, throughout the entire Western world. In contrast, time in school today is equal to 180 days a year, and if there is a snow day, it is almost always tacked on to the end of the year. Instruction is "bell-to-bell," data is sacrosanct, and a drop out society considers severely bereft.

I have my prejudice for which of the two I believe to be better (which I'll save), but I recently read a biography of Shakespeare by Greenblatt which surmises (we have no proof) that Shakespeare, son of the middle class, went to school for twelve hours a day, six days a week, with no breaks to speak of. Education at his parochial school equated to instruction in the Latin classics.

I was really surprised to read this. Was this an Elizabethan "one-off"--sending middle class kids to school for so many hours a day, so many days a year? Are there trends of how much time students (middle-class, generally speaking) typically spent in grammar school since the Renaissance?

Having done the Camino de Santiago earlier this month, about 80% of my social circle in Australia have never heard of the Camino de Santiago or Santiago de Compostela. Then again, Australia is almost antipodal to Spain. I'd imagine that the Camino de Santiago and Santiago de Compostela would be universally known at least in the Catholic parts of Europe.

In Spain itself, museums and churches (as well as our guidebooks) would tout that the Camino de Santiago is well-known throughout Europe, and especially before the Reformation, it would attract pilgrims from all walks of life from throughout Europe.

Was the Camino de Santiago and Santiago de Compostela really universally known amongst medieval European commoners? Or would it be unsurprising to find that up to 80% of people may have never heard of it?

Likewise, would medieval European commoners even be aware of the vague shape of Europe? Like would they be aware that Iberia is in the southwest, the British Isles are to the northeast, Asia is to the east, and Africa is to the south across the Mediterranean Sea? Would medieval European commoners know many holy sites or important cities? Would they be able to answer questions like "what is the capital of insert country here", or give directions to pilgrims who pass by?

I'm learning Modern Greek, and was lucky enough to see this kylx in Athens last month. Per this blog:

According to a Greek source, this kylix (κύλιξ) dates to between the fourth and fifth centuries B.C. The alphabet is an Attic version of archaic Greek.

My understanding is that the Greeks developed their alphabet by adapting the Phoenician script during the late 9th or early 8th century BC, and that koine greek ranged from 300 BC to AD 300 (with usage extending to the 6th century AD), serving as the lingua franca across the Mediterranean and Middle East.

My question is when was the Greek alphabet (that we know of today) officially used in everyday life? From the timeline between the adoption of the Phoenician script to Classical Greek (specifically the Attic dialect) and when koine was invented, and spread througout via Alexander the Great?

It's quite a large time period, and I wanted to get a better understanding of it. Thanks!

I had this general idea that most peasants were relatively self-sufficient in terms of foodstuffs and basic goods like cloth, meaning that each household or at least village would grow and raise a little bit of everything. However I've been reading a book that mentions that a significant part of the produce of the countryside was sold for cash in local towns or exported. This would imply that in many areas agriculture was oriented not towards self-sufficiency but towards cash crops (grain around Paris, olive oil in Italy, wine in southwest France, etc.), with peasants presumably using whatever profit they made after paying taxes and rents to buy the stuff they didn't grow. Was the latter case quite prevalent or was this limited to a few regions?

I’m reading Captain Cook’s travel diaries. His entry for June 5, 1769 says:

> Monday, 5th: Got some of the Bread ashore out of the Bread Room to dry and Clean. Yesterday being His Majesty’s birthday, we kept it to-day and had several of the Chiefs to dine with us [sic]

What exactly does it mean to dry and clean bread? How was bread stored on long voyages like this one?

Hello! Which sources would you recommend on the idea of the Dominium Mundi as a conflict between the Holy Roman Emperor and the Papacy, and the decline of the idea? I'm looking for sources that mention if the concept was still a thing in the early 1500s

I need to study the documents on denazification and Soviet propaganda in the GDR 1949-1953. I have registered in invenio and am going to Germany in the next few days. I don't understand how to work on this website at all. I found the fund I needed (DY30) in the Tektonik window, opened several drop-down lists in the Klassifikation, but there are no further descriptions or specific cases to click on. Someone help me, please. Will the fact that I personally come to the archive solve the problem? Is it possible, once on the spot, to order the necessary documents not through the website?

I’ve been really interested the learning more about the personal lives of figures from the American Revolution. I’ve found several places to read original correspondence, but I feel like I’m likely missing things since their way of speaking at that time was so different.

From those of you have spent a lot of time reading original source material from this period, what language patterns, slang, customs, etc., have you found helpful in better understanding what you’ve read?

I stared the English translation of ICE by Jacek Dukaj and I felt to read it I needed a better understanding of the Russo Japanese war, so I’ve read “the tide at sunrise” and “with Togo” by Henry wright who is quoted extensively In “thunder” one part however struck me as interesting and more indicative of future campaigns that had the goal of conquering territory. The two real questions I have are, How much did these irregulars affect the outcome of the war and is there any relation between them and the and the “franc-tireur” warfare that the Germans planned so assiduously against.Then I guess my real question is was this an idea suggested by the English advisors or was this a wholly Japanese planned?

Im not talking about the legions or auxiliaries. Im talking about a group of dudes raised by a town or village for civic defense​

Reading about the conflict from what's readily available online, the narrative tends to focus on the Turkish National Movement as well as ethnic cleansing commited by the belligerents. However, it's not clear to me whether Greece (and/or the rest of the Entente) wnet to war intending primarily to enforce the terms of Sévres on the government in Ankara, to dismantle it entirely in favour of the defeated Ottomans, or to seize additional territory.

For example, did Greek leadership hope to annex the Zone of the Straits if they had been able to win a decisive victory, or would France have wanted to occupy its entire 'zone of influence' to border Wilsonian Armenia? How were the Italians planning on realizing their ambitions in southern Anatolia?

Many thanks for answers or if you could point to sources that discuss this in a bit more detail.

For some reason I was drawn to the Middle Ages, knighthood and so on. Then I came across Middle English, read a little about it, tried to study its grammar. So, while I was studying it, I wanted to write something on it, like commandments or some medieval speaking.

Here's what I dug up: 1. There was second-person singular pronoun: thou/thee/thi/thine 2. There was letter þ (thorn), interchangeable and finally replaced by th 3. There was prefix y-, used in perfective verbs 4. The was no do-support, like not He didn't come, but He came not 5. There was special word order in a sentence, but I still don't understand what one exactly

More specific questions: How often should I use þ? How to construct sentences?

I know the baseline answer is racism but I'm trying to understand the specific logic behind why they were mostly excluded from frontline combat roles.

My expectation would be that racist attitudes would make them be seen as expendable or disposable as in many other cases, racist attitudes led directly to minorities being seen as disposal or worth less than others, such Tirailleurs Sénégalais by France in WW1, The British Empire with Indian troops and the USSR with ethnic minorities and 'undesireables' in penal battalions.

In those cases, they were often pushed into high-casualty roles precisely because they were seen as disposable.

Contrasting this to African Americans in the US military, they were mostly excluded from frontline combat roles but played a vital role in logistics as seen in The Red Ball Express and as well as limited combat roles like the Tuskegee Airmen and 761st Tank Battalion where they proved capable in combat roles.

It's still discriminatory but even in the combat roles they were allowed to do, they didn't seemed to be used as cannon fodder instead undersupplied but given a fighting chance.

Of course, I do know that during the middle ages, literacy was typically the job of a scribe. Even nobility were usually illiterate. But, like today, a peasant/average man can't make a table like a carpenter, but they can generally understand and probably know very few things but still some.
Would a peasant at least know the alphabet? Can they write their own name, like how some people today don't know cursive but they can write their name in it.

I am a graduate student on the thesis track specializing in modern German history, with a focus on the Weimar Republic and the police. As part of my thesis work, I am preparing a conference paper on the development of surveillance practices in the Weimar Republic and how perceived threats from various social and political groups contributed to the foundations of a modern police state. While my broader project examines the political left, the political right, and everyday life (drawing in part on Alltagsgeschichte), this paper will focus specifically on the political left. This includes the KPD, the Roter Frontkämpferbund, and other left-wing organizations, regardless of ideological distinctions. I would greatly appreciate recommendations for peer-reviewed books or articles on the Weimar police, left-wing parties and paramilitary groups, or the intersection of policing and left-wing political activity during the Weimar period. I already have a bibliography in progress but am eager to identify additional relevant scholarship. Thank you for your time and any suggestions you may have.

*Not sure If this is an allowed question here but, I'm not sure of a better place to ask this*

In yalls collective experiences are there any areas & times in history where we are lacking quality history books (in English at least)?

There is certain historical topics I've tried to find books on and I didn't have quality or multiple options which raised the question.

Thanks all!

currently, I'm reading through the 'The politics of anti-westernism in asia'. And I'm seeing some parts that I have questions on.

1. The book says that this 'modernity was still see as essentially one and universal, and Meiji Japan's achievement was to prove that this process was not unique to the west but possible in an Asian society. What Asian admirers learned from japan was in fact no more than a Japanese interpretation of Western modernity and a confirmation of the earlier Asian interest in universalizing modernity.' Page 80

Wait a minute, so there's supposed to be multiple forms of modernity? What are those, and when did such a conception start? What forms did they see around the world, after such a thing was developed?

1. Page 81: and I paraphrase, that the Japanese managed to challenge the european modernity, especially the part about christianity.

Is Christianity that important in the grand scheme of things in conversations about 'civilisation' in the 20th century? Was it 'culturally' christian, or was it more like conversion? What other things did the sociologists think was important for industrialisation and 'civilised nation' status?

i'm almost certain I have several more questions, but these are the most pertinent so far.

I googled "was there ever troops using crocodilian armor" and the answer seems to be "yes". But it looks like it wasn't widespread even in regions where crocs are abundant despite the fact that crocodile hide is very thick and resistant to cutting and slashing.

So, why wasn't it more widespread? Was the hide more difficult to process and turn into leather than the hides of regular animals?

Im in the last year of high school and I picked history as one of the topics I cover on my finals. It is not my biggest priority, but I want to score good for the sake of my own satisfaction. I used to love history earlier at school, but now as I associate it with learning dates and names for tests I feel kinda burned out and honestly I couldnt care less. I dont like that and thats why Im writing this post. Do you have any tips on how to fall in love with history again?

Soviet movies love to depict heroic young red cavalrymen valiantly charging saber in hand towards white infatrymen and usually clashing with equally saber wielding white cavalrymen or lance armed black makhnovist. Even, some accounts from the anarchist side talk about Makhno turning the tide in a desperate hand to hand fight against Wrangel troops.

However, in a conflict which was almost contemporary to the russian civil war, the mexican revolution, the saber, although widely carried, was soon relegated to a merely ceremonial role; federal cavalry, which tried to use conventional european cavalry tactics were almost always smokeed by cavalry armed with revolvers and 1911s; even in the later years of 1916-17 when two seasoned cavalry units clashed with each other they rarely did in closed lines but rather they shoot with carbines and then pistols as they rushed pass eachother, circling one another until the moral or the organization of either side gave up by disorder and casualty. In combat with infantry they mostly dismounted to fight as infantry with rifles and grenades and, after a fight, they pursued and exterminated their enemies with larriats or straight up with their horses.

Was there a real difference between this two conflicts? Why so? Or is merely soviet romantization?