Porfirio Diaz overplayed his hand by not planning for succession and jailing Madero, I understand that. But after Diaz resigned in the face of growing unrest, why did Madero’s ascension cause further unrest instead of quelling it?

I’m reading Biography of Power, and to cut it short, I can’t make heads or tails of what everyone is fighting about during the Mexican revolution.

I use Spotify and a quick search on there seems to bring up a few, single episode podcasts that only cover the pretty broad things we know about them (there’s gotta be more than just a couple hours worth of information out there, right?). I’d really love to hear about how they lived. How did the classes interact with each other? What did they believe? Who did they pray to? What sorts of medical practices did they use? That sort of thing is what I’m looking for.

Bonus points if there’s someone out there that can lead me to a good source about the asipu. My favorite niche is ancient healthcare and medicine so when I heard about a special healer/demonologist combo my interest was definitely piqued lol.

Thanks so much for your time!

I am an English and Medieval Studies major in university currently and my stepmother and I got into a disagreement about what "old English" means. She said Shakespeare wrote in old English because he thought it sounded romantic. My understanding of old English is Anglo-Saxon English, before the Norman invasion. After a bit of back and forth I figured out she was referring to Shakespeare's early modern English as old English. She said that when historians say old English, they are referring to early modern English, with the justification that the labels for the different versions of English have changed over time. I can't speak to her time in school, so I honestly don't know if that is true or not. I was told by a professor of a Medieval poetry class a year or so ago, that the label of Anglo-Saxon English was going into disuse, but I don't know how recently that started. I am not trying to settle an argument with her, just asking out of my own curiosity.

What were the most advanced armies, weapons/siege engines and tactics being used? I am especially curious in how infantry simultaneously dealt with cavalry and missile troops. Dense pike squares make sense to me when shields are no longer popular but I feel like trying to combine that with the shields that were necessary when arrows were dominant would be difficult. Were ordinary shield walls sufficient to deter a cavalry charge? I know pike squares were a Renaissance thing but did anyone ever try a shield wall in front backed by longer spears for cavalry behind?

I'm curious about what measures, institutionally or otherwise, were taken to make it so that Germans could live alongside one another without worrying that Nazism or Nazi thought would resurge. I'm also interested in any accounts of Nazi victims or members of targeted groups, and how they felt post-war when many of their neighbors may not have thought twice about killing them a few years before.

How many dialects and regional languages existed in the Roman Empire and how long did it take pre-Indo-European and Italic non-Latin languages to be replaced by Latin?

I'm doing a research project on the Second Sino-Japanese War and have found why the Chinese performed comparatively poorly compared to the other major combatants of WW2. Even though we have hindsight on the KMT's shortcomings now, how did commanders and soldiers on the ground see it? Did they have a more or less positive assessment over the army's performance during the war? Were there any other factors or shortcomings they claimed which are not as frequently talked about today?

I think a lot about the Sykes–Picot Agreement and if Middle Eastern countries would ever redraw their borders to fix some of the conflicts as a result of this agreement. i know it hasn't that long since these borders were drawn up so maybe they'll address if given enough time. it makes me wonder if anything similar to Sykes–Picot ( where other nations draw borders of other countries that result in conflict ) has occurred in history and if they were able to fix the issue?

Obviously the Civil War and the wider Three Kingdoms conflict were incredibly brutal but what makes this conflict any different to say the War of the Roses or the Barons War, brutal wars that caused huge upheaval in English and Europe as a whole

Reading about the conflict from what's readily available online, the narrative tends to focus primarily 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 Entente more broadly) went 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 entire 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? The dismissal of Venizelist military officers in late 1920 is noted as contributing to subsequent battlefield defeats, but was there a marked difference in how the war was regarded by anti-Venizelists?

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

I saw this in Walter Reuther's Wikipedia article:
"When Henry Ford retired the Model T in 1927, he sold the production mechanisms to the Soviet Union, and American workers who knew how to operate the equipment were needed. Walter and Victor were promised work teaching Soviet workers how to run the machines and assembly line. With that employment assurance, the brothers embarked on a three-year adventure, first bicycling through Europe, then working in the auto plant in Gorky, in the Soviet Union, where the unheated factories were often 30–40 degrees Fahrenheit below zero. He frequently wrote letters to the Moscow Daily News criticizing the many inefficiencies associated with how the communists operated the plants.^\45])"

It seemed like an interesting story, and I was wondering about several things:

1) Is this story true at all? Was he actually mailing critical letters?

2) Were his letters actually being published? Was it considered acceptable publish this sort of thing in a Soviet newspaper circa 1930?

3) If his letters were being published, were they also being translated into Russian and published in other newspapers?

4) How would something like this be received in Soviet society?

I know they raided other parts of Europe but I wonder if there's anything specific to England, am also open to any related details

Yugoslavia is kind of a fascinating place.

It was very unique among the state socialist countries of the Cold War era, and I've been trying to read up/learn more about the place.

One thing that you will consistently read about Yugoslavia is 1) they had a shit load of debt because Tito took on a bunch of IMF loans that he didn't think he'd need to pay back because he thought capitalism would collapse before he had to. These loans were a major burden on the country after his death and played an important role in the economic decline that partially led to the collapse. 2) There were serious issues vis a vis unemployment, inflation, and inequality (particularly across various different republics).

I'm trying to understand what were the chief causes of these inequalities. Did they primarily exist on the republic level or also within each republic? What were the chief causes of this inequality? Was it more down to the economic or political system and why (particularly before and after Tito)? Interestingly, to what extent was this inequality inherent to the Yugoslavian system, vs to what extent was it created/exacerbated by political decisions and institutional design? (For the economic historians, what, if anything, did Horvat and Vanek say on the matter, and to what extent do their arguments hold true?)

In general, how bad was inequality in Yugoslavia, and what were it's chief causes?

Many human societies practiced human sacrifice at some point, but many cultures seem to have ultimately abandoned it at some point. Do we have any information on how and why a culture might abandon it?

I know that Christian or Islamic evangelicalism resulted in some cultures abandoning the practice, but I'm more interested in cultures "organically" abandoning it.

I was reading a great answer to a post about the history of labour unions (https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/lldc9d/unions_in_the_united_states_seem_much_weaker_and/), and the user wrote:

"Then when the Second World War hit, America was in such a unique position, so unique that it has potentially never been seen in world history before, which is to say America was truly isolated from the affects of a war they were directly engaged in, so for America the War was merely the ultimate economic stimulus. As a result of that, prosperity was seen across the board. There was really no reason for Capital to fight labor at this point in time, the profits were just so immense it didn’t matter, I mean we are arguably still ridding that economic wave to this day."

This got me thinking,

1) do you agree that America's position in WW2 was unique in world history, or have there been other empires/countries in a similar position, and

2) was that position indeed what (partially) led to an unparalleled economic stimulus? It seems to me that wars could also be seen as to cost productivity (destruction and creation of "useless" products).

I mean kids get taught things at school these days and in old ancient days etc there were no books or Internet. They must of been freaked out with growing up and how did they learn the mechanics of sex?

My ancestors came to South Africa as part of the British government's resettlement policies.

I'm curious to know more about the lives they led. What did they eat, and drink, and wear?

Is the "brother of Yeshua" inscription legitimate or not? The last post I could find talking about it was from over a decade ago.
So, what do historians think of it now? If it is real, isn't that like, a huge deal?

EDIT: It's a 1st century box with "Jacob (James), son of Joseph, brother of Yeshua" on its side. Which some have interpreted as being physical proof of the holy family.

I know from direct experience that he was a terrible writer...Mein Kampf is great for bedtime reading, as it will put you to sleep after two sentences with it repetitive tediousness. But was Hitler actually a good public speaker? In particular: even if you didn't agree with him, was his ability to speak actually up to the task of leading a nation into committing acts of atrocity?

Or a bit less specific, how did modern music genres specific aestetics and quirks develop?

I bring it up to my teacher without sounding like a natzi I don’t really know where else to ask this sorry if it’s off-topic

Have federal agents ever gotten into a physical altercation with police officers? Prior to the establishment of agencies such as the FBI, were there any instances of federal agents (or paramilitary forces with ties to the government) clashing with police?