I've noticed when traveling around, and in my own town even, that often the tallest building in town was a bank in the 1890s-1920s. In my own town, for example, there is an 8 story building towering above the small rural town that was a bank. To this day, the next-tallest building is the hospital at 6 floors, and that was only build in the 1970s.

Note: it is possible this is limited to Southern rural towns, because that is the only region where I have visited rural areas. My presumption is it had something to do with agriculture money, but that doesn't explain the exponentially larger bank buildings than everything else.

For one it is built off the notion for many that the roman empire fell in 476 even though the east stood. Speaking of Rome The Mediterranean was still very much part of the Roman world the gothic kingdoms were romanized adopting it's cultures, laws, institutions etc. The ostrogoths were officially a client state of the Roman Empire.

In the near east the Power struggle between The Romans and The Persians was still the power struggle in that region. All of this of course would all change with the arab conquests. The Territory lost from the Arab conquest crippled Rome and essentially ended the roman world and Rome being a superpwer you the could make the case for 642 with the loss of egypt being the year ancient history ended or 651 with the fall of sassanid persia ending the last remant of an ancient polity that defined the politics and history of the known world.

But I know history doesn't always have clean start and end points it's more exciting to define a moment as the end and start of an era but many also the use the less exciting blanket and approximate start and end points and ranges like in this case ancient history ending at ~500 AD and if we were to use that wouldn't the ~630 - 800 AD make more sense for that?

Mostly looking to see if there has ever been a garlic god, but if there are actual people in history with interesting garlic-related stories, I'd be happy to hear their stories too.

I recently learned (from the brilliant podcast "The Rest Is History" that Allianz as an insurance firm took a good market share from depossessed Jewish business owners if not buying their businesses for pennies when they had the means to flee.

They also insured Auschwitz and other death camps.

I also managed to read on their incredibly buggy web page on the subject that :

"Through involvement in private associations, Allianz tried to counteract the regime’s plans for nationalization of the insurance sector."

But also :

"World War II shaped the work of insurance companies in many ways: all larger companies in the financial sector had to invest their reserves in government loans by order of the state. They served the state in financing the war. Allianz expanded its activities across occupied Europe in step with German military.

The SS was also a client of the insurance industry. As a result, Allianz, usually as part of a consortium of various insurance companies, insured staff and buildings at SS production facilities on the grounds of concentration camps."

They also talk about buying a business at a fair price from a Jewish business owner who "chose" to leave Germany for the US.

That seems like an incredible lack of accountability and quite a bit of whitewashing.

We all still think of Volkswagen as associated with the Nazi regime, probably because the whole industrial sector and economy in general had been dedicated to the bet of winning a European or even more expansive war.

But how come we don't talk about these companies who exist today, who were supporters of the Nazi regime, profited from it, and participated in the worst of atrocities ?

My father has worked for Allianz for about 10 years, although not in the insurance branch. His mother's father was deported as a political prisoner concentration camps in the early days where he died soon thereafter, and her partner (born in 1920) was a Jewish man who somehow survived the war - we don't know how he survived or what happened to his family, he never told anyone None of us ever thought a thing about Allianz, except that they are shit insurers and have a terrible organisation of their investment banking team.

How come they managed to get out of this intact with no one remembering that they fucking insured Auszwitch ? How are they allowed to lie on their website ? Why don't they have that stain on them when their success is due to the suffering and death of so many Jews in the Holocaust ?

So, religious wars between Christians are/were very common, and if we take the Middle Ages, the Reformation, etc., the religious cause for wars was quite common. Was it the same level of hatred between different strands of Islam?

I have no academic experience with history beyond high school, so I have a bit of a rough (and extremely Eurocentric) patchwork understanding of history. To sort of improve that, I've undertaken a project: a multi-year movie-marathon where each one is in chronological order. Some items include Quest for Fire, Mohenjo Daro, Prince of Egypt, Troy, Spartacus, then eventually onto the likes of Pirates of the Carribean, The Sound of Music, The Imitation Game, Hidden Figures, Forest Gump, and more. I have 627 movies on the list right now, plus 120 or so TV series.

Obviously, nothing is going to be an academic documentary. Many items on the list are going to majorly change events or make things up completely. I'm taking everything with a whole pound of salt. I dip my toes into Wikipedia fact-checking every now and then. Still definitely not academic level, but this project is for fun anyway and shouldn't feel like homework.

edit: Even if nothing in these movies is to be trusted, there's something interesting in what stories people tell about history. When I get to the Partition era, for example, I'll see British, Indian, and Pakistani pop culture versions of the event. Just as Shakespeare wrote Macbeth as the villain and Banquo as a virtuous man to appease King James, media depictions can tell us a lot about who wrote the story and why, too.

So - what are your favourite/least favourite depictions of history in media? Why?

Yes, I know there was the Protestant reformation and all that, and that the Church (what we call the Catholic Church now) was concerned with keeping church unity and not having it splinter into so many differing groups like they have now. So I’m not talking about violence issued out by the church authorities. I’m instead talking about every day people who, up to the last hundred years or so, would rather throw rocks and do harm against someone of a different denomination than see them as a follower of Jesus.

Take, for example, anti-Catholic violence by Protestant Americans in the 19th century. I mean, maybe it’s just how I am, but I would never look at a Catholic mother and child and say “You deserve to be treated like shit” and then hurl insults and threats at them, just because they report to a Pope while I, a Protestant man, do not.

I just don’t get why everyday Christians would do this.

I was reading about the legal principle of terra nullius, and how many peoples have had their lands stolen on the grounds that those lands were "uncultivated". Agriculture wasn't the whole or only definition of terra nullius which conquerers used; but it got me thinking about the Neolithic and the transition to agriculture -- I wonder if hunter-gatherers had their lands annexed by farmers who considered themselves more civilised, and I'm curious generally about the role of agriculture in the justification of conquest and colonialism through the ages.

Everyone knows the Lend Lease was a major player in both keeping Russia and the UK fighting prior tand during USA involvement in WWII.

But how much provisioning did Russia truly receive from the UK and USA?

What did these amounts constitute in terms of all Russian provisioning during the war?

Thank you!

Mostly a question of historical naming conventions. To my knowledge, the only controversy about naming the Inca empire is whether to refer to them as "Inca" or "Inka". But aren't those Spanish exonyms? Was there ever a desire to refer to them as Tawantinsuyu? Were there other names?

It's not like Churchill and his party didnt want to accelerate the already established British Welfare State; quite the opposite actually; infact his Govt already implemented the start of the great reform...
So whats the ACTUAL reason the Tories lost 1945. Surely it can't be "the British wanted newer, more expansive socio-economical welfare reforms..if the Tories and Liberals ALSO supported and implemented these policies!"

I've gone down a rabbit hole, reading a bit about Mary Todd Lincoln - especially in the time after her husband's death.

Lincoln wasn't the only first lady to lose her husband while in office - Kennedy, Harrison, Roosevelt, Harding and others died for various reasons.

I'm wondering if there is some type of standard protocol to allow the widow time to plan for a new home. Is there a certain time period to be out of the White House? Does the surviving spouse have to move from a "presidential suite" before relocating? What about surviving children - any protocols there? Does the new President have any input in the process?

Genuinely curious about what has been done over the years (from an internal perspective), and what has changed.

I just read an article regarding the siege of JadotVille and watched the movie from 2016. It’s got me curious, why were the men treated as cowards when they were able to defend against a vastly superior force with so little?

They had less Weaponry, most of which was not up to date, little ammo, low supplies and no support from the UN. So why were they vilified after surrendering when they had successfully defended JadotVille and caused mass casualties to the enemy forces without losing a man????

During World War II, Canada played a pivotal role in the Allied victory, supporting the United States and the United Kingdom across virtually every theater of war. Its contribution was, naturally, far more significant than that of France, which had been defeated by Germany. Yet, France became a permanent member of the Security Council, while Canada did not. What exactly was the reason? Surely, it couldn't simply be because it was a British Dominion?

Are there any 1st hand accounts about what fighting as a pikeman was like during this period from the perspective of rank and file soldiers in the pike block? I know there are a wealth of sources written by Generals and senior commanders and living history reenactments but I am interested to know what the first hand accounts from the "Poor Bloody Infantry" of the time stated or noted.

Given that the Russian government underwent a revolution that pulled them out of the first world war, and Germany largely entered the war due to the fear of Russia gaining too much power in the Balkans if Austria-Hungary lost:

What would have happened if Germany had just stayed out of the war and not pre-emptively attacked France (through Belgium).
Although Russia would have likely gained more influence in the Balkans, would the Russia Revolution negated the consequences for Germany?

I am looking for sociological, historical, and psychological material. As historians or history enthusiasts, what books and essays would you recommend? What are the best books you have read that deal with the subject of war?

With the creation and involvement in Europe of the Tuskegee Airmen, both white and black airmen were shot down. Were they placed in the same camps and what was the relationship like? As I am aware a lot of white soldiers who fought along side black soldiers in Vietnam had better relations than there counterparts back in the US. Was this similar int he 1940s or were prejudices to strong?

I’ve been reading historical accounts of the Spring and Autumn period. Back then, diplomatic practices such as interstate alliances and diplomatic missions were common. I wonder what these diplomatic activities specifically looked like. Also, how do they differ from modern international diplomacy? Was there an international order comparable to modern international law at that time?

Factories mass producing standardized equipment are generally associated with World War I and later wars.

But what did it look like in Napoleon time? Armies were enormous, hundreds of thousands of muskets, uniforms, backpacks etc.

Were many small craft workshops commissioned to do this? If so, how was equipment standardization handled?

Or perhaps there were already powerful factories controlled by the state at that time?

I get it like because he invited Russia in the winter and all that but what major battle losses really made him lose and other things like that excluding him in invading Russian in the winter for pushing into Russia in the winter because he almost marched on Moscow it was only a few hundred k’s away or so like and it would be awesome to just find that out and also I’m not doing this because I love him or anything like that. I don’t want seem like that but it’s just a question I have.

Like even before 1914 America already surpassed britain in terms of gdp and closely catching up to British empire in gdp but Germany was third yet BRITIAN was more anxious of Germany than America navally and industrially etc Why is that?

I'm currently listening to a podcast in which Prof. Peter Heather explains how groups like the Goths, Vandals and Alans were pushed/pulled West into Gaul, then Spain, then North Africa in what is essentially a few generations.

My question, then, is - how did these groups adapt to their circumstances so rapidly? In my (not so informed) mind, things like Climate and Culture would have been difficult to adjust to in such a short span of time. Culturally, I would assume they didn't assimilate but rather \[a\] kept to themselves or \[b\] enforced their own culture? Climatically I think it would be the most difficult to adjust. Farming techniques, different endemic animal groups with different husbandry requirements, seasonal variations (or lack thereof), etc. would all have to have been some major assimilation / adaptation points.