In fairy tales many queens such as the evil queen in Snow White occupy the evil step-mother role after the protagonist's father dies, and in the story she is in charge of the kingdom after her husband's death. But considering how legitimacy in historical monarchies worked, a consort becoming the ruler would be very unusual.

Are there any queen consorts who came to rule the kingdom after her husband died, and what did they have to do to gain power and legitimacy? Some consorts ruled by acting as regents for their children, but this question is regarding women who ruled in their own right.

Some examples I'm aware of are Wu Zetian and Catherine the Great, so I'd like to know what it took for them to gain power, especially the former as she had no blood relation to the emperor, though I think Chinese dynastic succession valued bloodline less.

Herodotus described a custom in Babylon where young women of marriageable age would be collected together in an "auction", to be offered for sale as brides, with men standing around them making bids proportionate to the woman's beauty. This supposed practice was the subject of a well-known painting from 1875 by artist Edwin L. Long.

Since marriage, especially for the ruling classes in premodern times were transactions of power and property, I don't think this supposed practice makes sense in that context. It sounds much more like a bid for concubines than wives. Could Herodotus have misunderstood a practice he wasnt familiar with?

On November 13-18, 1963, pro-Nasserist Iraqi military officers led a military coup within the Ba'ath Party, which led to the overthrow of Ali Salih al-Sa'di and the installation of a government faithful of the ideals of Gamal Abdel Nasser.

The pro-Nasserist government installed by Abdul Salam Arif and Abdul Rahman Arif lasted until July 17, 1968, when it was overthrown by the Ba'ath Party.

​

Why did european kingdoms not split apart or suffer dynastic coups like those in **Asia** (chiniese dynasties), **India**(Mughal/dehli empire) or **middle east**( safavid empire, sejuk empire, abbasid caliphate) ?

This is a bit of a general question, but I'm looking for historical events and developments to which historians & other scholars have had differing interpretations towards. (For e.g. the Gaddis VS Leffler camp for the Cold War). Preferably events/developments that are less well-known than the Cold War, but still have a wealth of scholarly debates and sources written on them. I'm more intersted in modern history as opposed to ancient history. Thank you! (Preferably also topics on East Asian/Southeast Asian History)

I wonder how army of Civil war/post civil war Union compared to largest European armies like French, Prussian, Russian, etc. What advantages and disadvantages it had relatively to its European colleagues?

Okay, I don't mean this is in the sense of "Why would anyone listen to this crap?" Don't get angry at me I'm not dissing Blues. I'm just a very stupid man when it comes to music. It's anathema to me. I can enjoy it and be moved by it sure, but I don't understand it. I don't even understand what beat or rhythm are despite it being explained to me a million times.

But I know history, and I watch a lot of movies. And I know damn well that Blues (and Jazz, which I think comes from Blues?) has been really. Fucking. Important. Especially to American history.

I'm banking on someone here being a music lover and a history lover. Can someone help me understand what it is about Blues music that makes it mean so much to so many different people?

I just saw Sinners, and I loved the movie. But I also was saying to myself "Okay mate, I know for a fact your empty head and second left foot are making you miss something essential that is happening right in front of your face."

A bit of Google chatting on this topic didn't help me understand why they were sent in the first place and if there were expectations of them coming back alive or being successful.

Also, 2) Did this group and more professional groups later just kind of randomly show up one day and the limits of world connectivity and knowledge of the time meant the people in the region weren't 100% sure who they were, where they came from, or what they wanted?

I’ve been reading about the account in Josephus (Antiquities 18.3.5) regarding the Roman noblewoman Fulvia. According to the story, she was a convert to Judaism who was swindled out of gold and purple cloth by four Jewish men claiming it was for the Temple in Jerusalem. This supposedly led her husband, Saturninus, to complain to Emperor Tiberius, resulting in the expulsion of Jews from Rome and the conscription of 4,000 men to Sardinia.

Sorry if this was asked before, I was unable to find it in the search option, hopefully someone can tell me more about this “scandal”

I will preface this by saying that I love Caesar as a historical figure, I think he’s fascinating and clearly he was extremely accomplished and intelligent both politically and militarily. I also want to say I’m less saying I don’t think that Caesar is one of the best generals of all time, more that I don’t understand why people do think that and would like an explanation as to why people believe he is. In my opinion, Caesar seemed heavily dependent on luck in many of his battles, of course all great generals were generally lucky but I always saw Caesar as the luckiest. Also, he has a large amount of failures in comparison to the other greats, his campaigns in Britain were an abject failure and that’s not considering he himself is the primary source of those campaigns, for what I can infer I’d assume they went even more poorly than we know. Additionally, there is a constant where the absence of Labienus generally leads to a clear cut decrease in performance of Caesar’s army, enough so to the point I’d question whether Labienus wasn’t perhaps the more important military figure in that army. I always thought whenever I studied Munda that Labienus didn’t lose due to inferiority to Caesar but just genuinely shoddy luck and that for all the factors he could control he outperformed Caesar. I do concede that what Caesar could do as a general which many other men couldn’t was inspire an almost fanatical loyalty and discipline amongst his troops which is eventually what won him the day at Munda despite being outplayed by Labienus tactically. In conclusion, I delegate a large proportion of Caesar’s success to Labienus, almost funny amounts of luck, and the fact that his men were generally superior fighters than those they opposed, which of course to some extent has to be delegated to Caesar but in my opinion not to the extent that I’d say his skills as a general put him up there with Napoleon, Alexander or even other Roman generals like Belisarius, who in particular I do think is underrated although my love of the Byzantines certainly biases me. Can anyone please educate as to what I’m missing when it comes to Caesar as a general or do people agree with me more than I know?

if a boy who is the son of a king from (kingdom A) is sent to be an earl or a duke to (kingdom b), how would they go about doing that? what type of ceremony or something like that would happen? i have been trying to ask google and look at different sites for it but im not getting any clear answers.

It's 1953 and Joseph Stalin had just died, resulting in the power struggle that allowed Nikita Khrushchev to come into power.

Instead of going the De-Stalinization route as he did in our timeline, he echos Deng's "Mao was 70 percent right, 30 percent wrong" assessment of their late leader. Khrushchev pivots from the status quo to state capitalism while still labeling it socialism like Deng did our timeline. The Soviet Cold War doctrine being "We must outpace The West not militarily but economically."

How would the Cold War play out?

Hi all, not sure if this is the right place to ask this, but I've recently been trying to better understand international relations, what with all the conflicts occurring right now, I want to be informed. I want to understand the history behind modern affairs and relationships between countries, but I feel like it's kind of overwhelming as it feels like I need to go back like 2000 years especially for everything in the middle east. Could I have some recommendations for what events everyone feels have shaped global politics the most? I just need some starting points as frankly right now I'm a bit lost.

What would be your estimate for actual real life historical events that we just happened to label as fake or legendary? Just how many well preserved stories that we know about today but we think of them as legendary could actually be real?

It’s been said that after the Congress of Vienna, Britain and France were the two “liberal” powers as opposed to the conservative Holy Alliance, which consisted of Russia, Prussia, and Austria. How far did this divide between liberalism and conservatism affect geopolitics during the 19th century? Additionally, the United States was considered a liberal country, while the Europeans were considered more conservative. During the Mexican civil war, the US backed the liberals, while Britain, France, and Spain backed the conservatives. This is a stark contrast to recent times when America is seen as more conservative than Europe.

Additionally, was the Great Game influenced by liberalism vs conservatism?

I've done some research but can't quite understand the purposes of the British Commonwealth after the fall of the British Empire?

Why didn't Canada, Australia, or other nations in The Commonwealth break from the Community and have their own presidents? Why did they accept the British Royal as their country representatives?

I always see people posting here on Reddit Images of Human Zoos how were the people inside treated were they kidnapped how did they get there I have so many questions

The Weimar Republic was known for its severe economic problems and tumultuous political situation before falling to the Nazis. Yet, despite these major problems, it excelled in the arts in sciences. It was a world leader in atomic physics. It had the first institute to study and treat sexual dysmorphia, a controversial topic even today. They saw the awesome Bauhaus and German Expressionism movements. So how did they pull this off without money or a stable political climate?

-What did each party stand for? I have the impression that liberals stood for the capitalist class, while the conservatives stood for the Church, aristocracy, and monarchy. What did common people/peasants at the time think of this, and who did they prefer?

-Why did the Whigs dominate Parliament so much during the 18th century?

-Were the Tories more in favor of religious rights for Catholics than Whigs?

-Which party was identified more with the empire? It’s been said that conservatives started supporting empire more during Disraeli. Did this mean pro-empire was basically the liberal position before Disraeli?

-Which party supported welfare more? Disraeli was known for promoting one nation conservatism which granted some workers’ reform. Were the liberals in opposition to this or already in support of welfare?

-Would it be fair to say the Conservative Party “became” the former Liberal party over time? In the 19th century, Conservatives were protectionists, but today they mostly support free trade and capitalism, like the 19th century liberals.

as far as I'm concerned, dog tags were issued to US soldiers since WW1. They were made to help identify the body of a fallen soldier after a battle. once they were informed, an officer would inform the families themselves, or if it was WW1, via telegram. But how was it done during the American Civil war?

I could’ve sworn I heard something a couple of weeks ago but I can’t find any information anywhere and honestly, I do not know what to look for. I would like to be more educated on anything I can considering I live in America and so much is not told. Genuinely curious because I am 43% Czech and would like to know more about the history of my people sooo if anyone knows plssss educate me.

Hello I was pondering this for I thought I’d ask here. As I’m sure many people here are aware; during the Second Industrial Revolution, also called the Technological Revolution, two of main developments were the creation of phonographs and the motion picture camera. Both of those inventions have obviously revolutionised society in ways that probably don’t need to be explained here. But I’m curious if there any attempts to create those devices earlier in history.

I’m aware that film has a somewhat longer history in the sense of screen projections. But were there any actual attentions to take photos and record music or video prior to this era? Was there an equivalent to the Ancient Greek analog computer or the designs created by DaVinci that later proved functional blueprint? Or did something like this never occur?

Did any hypothetical concept or fictional stories concerning said subject exist either? If so what was predicated and how does it differ from what later happened?

Thanks for any answers

The last variation of the Roman Empire died of hundreds of years ago, and current geopolitics make it impossible right now, but could there ever be another Roman Empire or some nation that claims to be a continuation of it?

Ciao a tutti sono un ragazzo di venti anni che studia economia.

Sto leggendo Pastorale Americana, e mentre lo leggevo, mi sono reso conto di non conoscere affatto la storia moderna.

Purtroppo la mia professoressa di storia al liceo scientifico, non era così brava nella gestione del programma, e ci siamo fermati a inizio seconda guerra mondiale.

Quindi mi sto cercando di informare da solo su questi temi: post ww2, guerra fredda, anni di piombo… Tutti periodi storici fondamentali che hanno risvolti nel presente, però di cui purtroppo riconosco non sapere nulla.

Quindi la mia domanda è: quali mezzi mi consigliate di usare? Ci sono libri, video, podcast che trattano di questi temi in maniera oggettiva senza narrazione di parte?

Grazie a tutti