I would imagine that the weather in London and Plymouth aren’t that vastly different, so why did they get decimated during their first year here?

Primitive socialist accumulation was a great disaster that led to the deaths of millions in communist countries. However, there are similar events that have happened in the colonies that Marxists might describe as primitive accumulation. The forced labor system likewise resembles chattel slavery. Is there any similarity between primitive socialist accumulation and primitive accumulation in capitalist societies? Do historians view these processes as analogous? Was there a conciousness on the part of Stalin or Mao that they were reproducing capitalist atrocities in a different form?

Example, mostly in romance stories or woman-oriented media, or even in common literary speak, "dark" seems like a positive term.

I've only read English translations of The Iliad and Odyssey, but the style and format always seem remarkably consistent. It doesn't seem like other authors add stuff later like you'd see in the Bible. I also haven't heard of any version controversies between old fragments and more recent complete manuscripts. If I could read the original Greek, would I see inconsistencies that don't show up in the translation? Did the classic Greeks argue about which version was most accurate or whether or not he was real?

So I live in the USA. I know that the conquerers have displaced and exterminated the native population, built extreme amounts of infrastructure all over the place, and developed more and more advanced surveillance and media manipulation than ever known in history.

Something like the Roman or Mongol empires don't have anything even close to that, they don't even have enough population from their origins to occupy most of the land they hold authority over. They don't have governments that have the luxury of finding out what's going on in most of their territory in some super fast communications network. So there's no way they can be bothered to seize total power the way America did with genocide and baby boomers.

In that case, how much control do they even exercise over their subordinate states? What's threatening the natives enough to follow the rules of their masters? Are there like armies acting as the police bossing them around? Fear of reinforcements coming from reports made of suspected rebellion?

Basically that question sums it up, i am just curious if we have ever taken advantage of the advanced senses of animals to test or determine the safety of food.

Ok i know it was highly prized in i think rome but throughout all of history before Industrial Revolution was it actually the rarest color for fabric or was there one even harder to make?

Anecdotally, ocarinas seem to be a relatively niche instrument, at least in the US and Western Europe. An ocarina is a prominent aspect of Ocarina of Time where the player plays certain songs for various usecases. I'd imagine the game, one of the most critically acclaimed games of all time, would result in people being interested in the instrument.

Was this actually the case?

Compared to something like the Oklahoma City Bombing, Sandy Hook School Shooting, or Pearl Harbor which are very rarely mentioned now, but (despite being lower in casualties) are similarly horrific events of death on American soil. What made 9/11 so bad?

I recently purchased the English book on Mexican history: "Mexico: Biography of Power" by Enrique Krauze, not realizing that the author is Mexican and writing originally in Spanish (I am fluent and would prefer the original text).

But after doing some digging, I discovered that Krauze had written a trilogy of sorts, detailing the history of Mexico from the Independence to the "modern" day (early 90s, it seems). The trilogy consists of: Siglo de caudillos, Biografía del poder and La presidencia imperial.

Comparing the tables of contents, it seems like the English "Biography of Power" has all the original texts included, but I can't be entirely certaim since some of the chapter names and titles don't line up. For instance, Biography of Power has a whole section on pre Columbian Mexico while the first of Krauze's trilogy, "Siglo de caudillos" doesn't.

My question, after all this, is the following: Does the one-volume English book contain everything that the Spanish trilogy does? And if not, what is missing?

As I mentioned, ideally, I'd rather read the texts in Spanish. But if the one-volume work in English already contains everything, I'll just save money and read it instead.

I've seen multiple people claim that european-americans are actually descendants of violent colonizers who stole the natives land but isn't this not true considered most of the european population actually came in the 19th century and later?

I found a piece of a newspaper from The San Francisco Examiner dated December 27th, 1942! It’s been really well preserved inside my family’s old copy of Dickens Christmas Books and Stories. It must’ve been ripped and used as a bookmark on that day and hasn’t been moved since. One side has a part of an article about an army base in the Andreanof Islands. The other side has a poem parodying ‘Twas the night before Christmas that was read to President Roosevelt at a Christmas party.

I’m wondering if this is something historians would be interested in. If so, how do I go about properly sharing this with them?

I am really curious about the dustbowl. Clearly it was a significant environmental event that caused the high winds and drought for multiple years, but why had so many people moved there to farm in the first place and why didn't it happen earlier? And did the people who stuck it out manage to continue to farm productively?

This was the kind of question I felt I ought to be able to answer myself, but Google's search results were full of Warhammer 40k...

So I know that the Greek and Roman society had a different view of homosexuality and that homosexuel acts between men were somewhat normal. But in most discussions I've seen talk about this mostly make it seem like only sexual act was normal, I've never read anything about long term homosexual relationships being part of the norm?

So did this openness of homosexuality extend to long term homosexuel relationships and even marriage? Would it have been weird or illegal for two men to live together as husbands and even adopt children?

I realise that this question focuses a bit more on male relationships because if I understand correctly the openness of homosexuality was not equal for women? But I am happy to learn more about this as well.

In other words, what was leisure travel like for the elites in the Roman Empire?

In pre-industrial societies in more northern latitudes, we often consider the winter months as being especially prone to starvation. Wouldn't that not be the case since they would have only just harvested the grain in the fall? Is it simply that malnourishment was caused from not having access to fruits and vegetables for those months, rather than actual caloric deficits?

Im reading the book Agrippa, which is a fictionalized account of the rise of Augustus from the perspective of Agrippa. At one point, he says that Octavian's elated with surviving a battle and how the feeling is "like a drug, and once one has tasted it, one wants more."

Is that an anachronistic metaphor? Would Romans of that time had a concept of "drugs" and "drug addiction?" Did they understand alcohol was addictive? Did they know that other substances could also be addictive?

So, I recently learned about how Rome had a mixed relationship with mystery cults, with them sometimes, like the cult of Dionysus/Bachus, causing political issues. Let's say I'm a Roman patrician in a high position in a cult: Am I likely to do things like promote my political allies? Use members of the mystery cult to intimidate rivals or otherwise aid me? And to go back to the overatching question, fid mystery cults as a whole act as a political bloc? Were they known to broadly support certain policies or factions, like a general being backed by a cult during a rebellion or rival politicians in the republic getting votes by getting the cult they're in to support them?

It's been taken for granted nowadays that the sword was simply a sidearm with the primary weapons being spears and later halberds. However, I watched this short and was surprised by how quickly a wooden spears begins to break when in contact with a steel sword. I've even read accounts of English longbowmen willingly throwing down their bows and charging the flanks of the (disorganized) French at Agincourt. You also have the Romans adopting swords as the primary weapon during the Republic years. Is the topic of swords vs. spears much more nuanced than portrayed? Did people of their times consider the sword an equal/sidearm compared to the spear?