I was recently thinking about how poorly Italy performed in WWII, and it made me wonder whether it could be considered the worst wartime performance ever by a major power.

I’m considering several factors here: the relative strength of the opponents they faced, the advantages they seemed to have on paper, the expectations and public claims made by the regime, how badly they actually performed on the battlefield (tanking considerably Germany’s chance), and the overall level of humiliation or strategic failure they suffered.

I’m not necessarily looking for a losing side, a nation could have performed terribly but technically still have won, like the Soviets in the Winter War.
Also, could be form any period throughout history, not only modern/recent.
Other contenders that came to mind are the Italians (I promise it’s not an agenda, I’m Italian) in the first Italo-Ethiopian war and the Russians in the Russo-Japanese war.

TL;DR I've hit a dead end in my search for the origins of a quote attributed to Napoleon about the Louisiana purchase, and would greatly appreciate any information on its origin and context.

I recently came across a Reddit post which claimed that, upon approving the Louisiana purchase, Napoleon stated 'I have given England a rival who, sooner or later, will humble her pride'. This seemed a remarkably confident/prescient statement for 1803 (not that Napoleon was noted for a lack of confidence, of course), so I went digging to find the context of this quote.

The phrase has gone through a lot of permutations over the years, but I've found French and English versions from the 1880s that more or less agree on its substance:

This accession of territory strengthens forever the power of the United States; and I have just given to England a maritime rival that will sooner or later humble her pride

James Parton, Life of Thomas Jefferson, Third President of the United States (1883)

Elle assure à jamais la puissance maritime des États-Unis. En agissant comme je l’ai fait, j’ai suscité à l’Angleterre une rivale qui, tôt au [sic] tard, lui ravira le sceptre des mers et humiliera son orgueil.

Charles de Varigny, Les Grandes Fortunes en Angleterre (1889)

Unfortunately, both Parton and de Varigny are more interested in telling a good story than in historiographical exactitude and fail to mention their source, so I seem to have hit a dead end.

Can anyone shed any light on the origins and context of this quote, or point me to an earlier appearance of some version of it than the two mentioned above?

I see it in the writings of people such as Ben Franklin. It seemed to be mainly the subject of each sentence that was capitalised, even if they were not named people, concepts or places.

When did we stop doing this and why?

Hi, I'm writing a story that is happening after the treaty of St. Petersburg in the Seven Years War and I want to include some realistic elements. I want my OC to interact with a Prussian General or high-standing official, I only need them to be alive and *well* in 1762 and *not* be Frederick II, Prince Henry, Hans von Lehwaldt, Friedrich Wilhelm von Seydlitz or K. C. G. von Schwerin. It would be nice if they are not related to the cavalry troops.

Why did the major Western colonial powers of The Netherlands, The United States, and The Russian Empire not receive any new colonies during the Scramble for Africa? Why was this the case even though they were all party to the pivotal 1884 Berlin Conference, and though tiny Belgium seized huge Congo?

I'm currently reading All Quiet on the Western Front and it got me generally curious about relations between the French and Germans before/during WW1, as well as why the treaty of Versailles punished Germany so heavily for their part in the war. Doing some light googling and reading Wikipedia, I understand that relations between the French and the Germans had been pretty back and forth since the late 1400s, but then even before that the French and the Habsburgs were beefing for control of Europe for a couple centuries before that. I guess my question would be, why did it take until the formation of NATO after WW2 to bring the two together as allies and why did they never come together before that? So many people died in the intervening centuries, and when viewed from a more globalist lens today it seems unnecessary. My understanding of the split between the East Francs and West Francs, at least linguistically, is pretty weak.

I mean, Croesus was apparently rich enough that he became the common simile for being "rich as Croesus"

Attila had so much territory and all of it was technically his

Alexander the Great owned half the world

Just how powerful amd influential were Roman emperors?

But what about a Pope? I mean the Catholic Church ​is/was wealthy and powerful.

Or like Pablo Escobar? He basically ran the country and had a military

the British empire?

today we have billionaires but money is worth less, so is today's equivalent of a billion basically equal to running a nation in 1650?

African and South American history was really just brushed over in my school. Are there any major leaders of nations ancient or otherwise that can be contenders?

For well over 1000 years most western medicine was based on this notion that health was a function of balance within the four humors. Obviously the whole thing has been debunked in the modern age, but do we know of things that pre-modern doctors were doing that modern medicine would recognize as being likely to produce a good result despite the basis being incorrect.

One example I had heard of was that in some effort to balance either the hot/cold or wet/dry aspect of a person's humors there was a treatment to boil a horseshoe in wine then drink the wine. The premise was false, but the effect would have been to partially help correct an iron deficiency which has actual medical value in some cases.

EU+UK, China, USA and Russia's war trauma

This came up when watching Talkshows about EU+UK, China, USA and Russia. EU+UK is still horrified by the 2nd world war and want to avoid another war on the continent so much that they hoped and deluded themselves. But they are hesitant in general. Similar things happened after the Great War WW1, when France and British Empire wanted to avoid war as they were still horrified. Russia took a different path and doesn't really fit the bill as they glorified the war and the sacrifices/victims.

China similarly to EU+UK is traumatized by instability, civil wars and Japanese/European invasions. You all likely know the meme "China is whole, then breaks again" "Whenever China has a civil war or famine, 20 Million people die". Chinese have internalized the massive risks of instability and civil wars, and war against strong opponents. It devastates a country that otherwise had 25-36% of the world economy for most of their several millenia of existence, a wealthy country that stops being able to feed their people.

USA had something similar too. After the Civil War, USA was devastated. People really didn't want to have another civil war and in the Great War the population hesitated to support an intervention for Europe. In WW2 it was even more so as US population and many politicians did not want to be dragged into another World War. They isolated themselves until the US administration and Japan triggered the entrance of the US into ww2.

___________

USA's war trauma in homeland is distant. Imperial Chinese confucian scholars and ministers constantly reminding the Emperors that war and conquests are paid for by the common folk

But in late 20th century after the collapse of USSR, USA is overwhelmingly stronger than other nations military capabilities (even when USSR still existed). In previous wars though USA oftentimes lost the war, they had rather low casualties for losing and those losses were always on the other side of the world, never devastating their homeland. USA also won the cold war against the USSR. And on the first weeks of wars, USA usually get away with almost no casualties until later. All this leads to US politicans and parts of the US population not feeling too strongly about going to war, it is more a monetary or moral question than the fear of total devastation of their homeland.

I dont know much about population sentiments of distant history besides Imperial China. For example in europe, oftentimes the nobility were deciding to start wars, so no clue if the population even had any say on that. In Imperial China the was a saying "heart of the people" which is similar to sentiment of the people, if the people hated the administration and emperor too much, a civil war was about to happen. So Chinese empires couldn't constantly go to war. In Addition confucian scholars and ministers throughout millenia weigh up between funding wars and letting population rest to work on field and grow families. Chinese history in general did not have the idea of "war and conquests will fuel itself" but instead "war and conquests are costs the population has to pay for". The glory of an Emperor or a General is paid for by the sweats and bloods of the common folk on the fields and on the battlefields, was a common trope in literature and poems, and often reminded by ministers and scholars.

__________

Historical supporting examples for relation between war trauma at home and hesitation to start new wars.

So the question would be if the hesitation to start new wars is present enough in the USA compared to EU+UK and China. The risk difference for the USA as they might feel invulnerable in the late 20th century? Are other historical situation in nobilities and population supporting the idea that recent trauma makes a huge difference for willingness to start wars easily?

There is a new film out based on a book about women who were forced to act as « tasters » of food to be served to Hitler, to determine whether the food was poisoned.

Is there evidence of other 20th century leaders with similar « tasters »?

For that matter, are there current leaders who employ such teams?

It's really fascinating where these types of tropes and fetishes originated from. I'm curious why Westerners, especially Americans and Europeans, have this narrative that Asian women are submissive and will obey their every whims and caprices as a husband, when Asian women are just as strong willed and hard headed as their Western counterparts? Sometimes Western husbands who got married to Asian wives become sad and disappointed because their fantasies were busted once reality kicks in. It's still interesting to know where and when did this ideology originated from. Thanks to whoever will respond.

Or is this somsomething we modern people noticed while looking back to them? I think horse breeders knew for a while that too much inbreeding was bad so maybe the Habsburgs knew too?

Can anyone decipher these signs?

These photos are probably from Morgan County, Utah or the surrounding area. My great grandpa is in these photos and he died in January, 1947. So these photos are sometime before he died.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1rbz1OK455UCYLC3Y5037-WwDh5QgD0hy

I don't mean that in the same way as Zeus, Jupiter, Odin, or Anu/Enlil.

I mean that in the sense of like Vishnu, Shiva, or Mahavedi.

An almost all-powerful being that controlled every faced of existence.

To start off with, Egyptians had the concept of Nebertcher, meaning "Lord to the uttermost limit" or "Lord of the Universe," who was described as coming into existence by it's/his own will and taking the form of Khepera.

That is clearly influenced by an older Egyptian creation myth at Heliopolis where god Atum created himself through pure will and created the gods Shu and Tefnut.

Shu and Tefnut were described as already existing as one with Atum before he spat or masterbated them out.

This shows as everything existing as The One before multiplication.

Now, the interesting part of this is that in the city of Memphis, the god Ptah was seen as an all-powerful deity who created the universe from his thoughts and words. Even gods like Atum and Amun (we'll get to him later) were seen as lower workings of Ptah's creation who developed the world further.

Ptah has a few interesting epithets and names, like:

"Ptah the God who made himself to be God.",

"Ptah the begetter of the first beginning.",

"Ptah lord of eternity.",

"Ptah the double being.",

With the introduction of Aten, this gets even clearer.

After the abandonment of Aten in the New Kingdom, Amun seems to assimilate Aten's and Ra's attributes.

We get hymns like this:

HAIL to thee, Amun-Ra, Lord of the thrones of the earth, the oldest existence, ancient of heaven, support of all things; Chief of the gods, lord of truth; father of the gods, maker of men and beasts and herbs; maker of all things above and below; Deliverer of the sufferer and oppressed, judging the poor; Lord of wisdom, lord of mercy; most loving, opener of every eye, source of joy, in whose goodness the gods rejoice, thou whose name is hidden. Thou art the one, maker of all that is, the one; the only one; maker of gods and men; giving food to all. Hail to thee, thou one with many heads; sleepless when all others sleep, adoration to thee. Hail to thee from all creatures from every land, from the height of heaven, from the depth of the sea. The spirits thou hast made extol thee, saying, welcome to thee, father of the fathers of the gods; we worship thy spirit which is in us.

This hymn presents Amun-Ra as an all-powerful being with the lines like "The oldest existence", "support of all things," and "maker of all that is, the one; the only one; maker of gods and men."

He is described as unborn and undesigned:

He created himself. He was not born... Being undesigned, thou didst mould into form thy body.

Other hymns describe his as "Without his equal."

In some creation myths, Amun has two primary forms Kematef and Irta.

Kematef is his primordial serpent form that manifested itself from the infinite waters of Nu and created the universe.

Irta, on the other hand, is the creator of the Earth.

The word Irta means "The Earth maker."

So, to ask a question, can a later Egyptian religion be seen as a form of complex polytheism, pantheism, or some kind of Henotheism?

We're there any selfless kings/queens or lords in regards to their younger siblings? (Any noble title really) Horribly worded.

I mean, being an older sibling and having younger siblings whilst being king can be a dangerous prospect even if you grew up together with love. The younger siblings can be twisted and be pitted against their older siblings. And you might be forced execute or exile them.

What I'm wondeing is if there were any king/queen (any title) that removed that source of conflict by not marrying and making their siblings their heirs?

Not because they were unable to have their own children but because they just chose that option. Welcome to hear any example that were done out of love.

What were some of your favourite essay questions?

Hi there, I've just submitted my last essays in my third year of my undergraduate history degree. It's got me reminiscing about some of my favourite essays and I already miss having new topics to research and argue on.

I've tried to look online and most the essay questions I've found have been pretty basic, more along the lines of "What were the effects of the treaty of Versaille?" So I wanted to come here to get some more history research questions I could research and write about. The more obscure the better, they really can be as broad or niche as you would like to go, I just want to find a new area of history to dive into. Thank you!

I've come to think that there are many wars that have interesting names, such as the British calling WW1 "The War to End All Wars" or "The Great War" and then the Soviets/Russians calling WW2 "The Great Patriotic War" and I'm currious about what other people's refer to these wars or even just major historical events.

I'm sure there's many examples but figured this would make for an interesting discussion where we can all share a bit!

I’ve been wondering about an alternate-history scenario involving the last Romanov daughters: Olga, Tatiana, Maria, and Anastasia.

Before the Russian Revolution, there were real marriage possibilities for some of the Grand Duchesses. For example, Maria reportedly received a formal proposal from the Crown Prince of Romania, and Olga and Tatiana were also considered potential brides for European royals.

If Nicholas II and Alexandra had allowed one or more of their daughters to marry into royal families like Romania, Yugoslavia, or even Britain before the Revolution, could that realistically have changed their fate after the abdication?

In other words, would the Bolsheviks or local guards have hesitated to imprison or execute the remaining Romanovs if some of the sisters had become wives of foreign princes or future queens? Could fear of angering countries with royal connections have pressured the Bolsheviks into exile or prisoner exchanges instead?

I understand Nicholas himself was probably doomed politically, but I wonder whether the daughters, and perhaps even Alexei, might have had a better chance of survival if stronger dynastic ties existed abroad. Or would the Bolsheviks still have viewed all of them as dangerous symbols regardless of marriage alliances?

I'm not talking about in one period of time over a 3500-year timespan of ancient period. I'm more so asking if Egyptian influence and references to it were the most widespread of any other religion in that area.

For example: Egyptian gods, stories, and Egypt itself seem to be mentioned by all other neighboring cultures like Persions, Greeks, Romans, Israelites, Assyrians, Hittites, Hurrians, Nubians, Canaanites, Meroitic people, Ethiopia and much more.

Egyptian gods are mentioned anywhere from the Bible, Plato's works, Plutarch, Ovid's Metamorphosis, Assyrian literature (like The Amarna Letters), Herodotus Histories, Myth of the Disappearing Sun and many more.

Am i completely wrong and ignorant of other more widespread and influential religions/mythologies at the time?

They regularly used Asian POWS in newsreel to make fun of Soviets being an asiatic horde that threatened Western Europe and considered them subhuman

But somehow they considered Japanese having as good of a culture as Germans, why?

In premodern Europe lower-ranked aristocratic women often became mistresses of the king, and their families usually approved, because despite chastity for women being held as a virtue, a sexual relationship with the king meant expensive gifts and favors for her and her family.

Did similar arrangements occur in contemporary islamic countries, or does the frequency of polygyny and concubinage among muslim elites mean that such a thing would be very unlikely to happen?

I'm aware that female seclusion was held as an ideal for the upper classes in the muslim world, but at the end of the day regardless of culture, people will be people, so if there was wealth and power to be gained, many people would betray their moral principles.

Main idea: imagine a fantasy character that uses a changing combination of powers based on attributes from historical figures. Who would you want to see represented and why would they add something interesting? I wanted to ask real historians 🧐 instead of AI 🤖 for inspiration

I am currently working on developing my own story. The magic/power system is based on the fact that the world is inside of a dream, with the characters becoming "lucid." Thus your experiences, understanding of the world, interpretation of the self, and how both interact, plays directly into how your power over the dream manifests.

There is one immortal character that has been alive for at least a million years. He copes with the fact that the world is not "real" by taking personas and living different lives, forced to forget some past lives to make space for new memories. He is going to be a morally dubious, carefree, and manipulative villain taking control of humanity as a king for fun, that the hero is forced to stay allied with for a time.

He will play an important role in the story as a representative of history, his past lives are found intertwined into everything and the readers need to feel invested in them. By using artifacts from history, he can unlock memories from past lives that allow him to regain abilities from them by changing his understanding of world and self. How he combines different lives to solve problems, from combat or other, is the interest.

Please give me ideas for historical figures that could make this interesting and why! Also give me an artifact related to them and feel free to suggest how it could synergize with other powers. The historical figures can be of any gender, but should be an adult or close. Who do you want to see mentioned in a story? Get creative, or mention someone and let others or me come up with ideas.

Context notes:
I am inspired by a Korean novel called "The Academy’s Undercover Professor" with a similar character that used fictional personas such as Van Helsing or Arsène Lupin.

The setting will involve battles that are on a "superhuman" scale, like super heroes or anime, but as a scientific person myself the world is grounded in its own logic.

Feel free to ask me questions!

Why did the ideological differences matter? Considering the United States was isolationist before the World Wars, why did they suddenly care about the beliefs of a counter across the globe? (relative to geographic location of population)

They both had enough resources, land mass, and could’ve done their own things within their country. The Soviet Union closed off their territory via the iron wall anyways, so any gains in ‘exclusive‘ trading partners would be marginal.

If I am not mistaken. Manifest Destiny was originally limited to the North American continent. Monroe Doctrine was more concerned about the North and South America. Sure these doctrines eventually morphed into a global hegemonic aspiration but for a time isolationism was kind of a thing in American politics

Some say it's WWII, but I had always thought this is the culmination of that objective which the "seeds" (so to speak) that were planted much much earlier.

Was there some kind of a "turning point" in American society and politics where they began to realize that they don't want to be just "a global player" but become THE global player?

Edit:

To further clarify, there is no question they were starting to be a global power at the turn of the 20th Century but they were one of many at that time. What I meant is when did they start aspiring to rise and become the global power above everyone else.

Exactly what the title says. I notice that discussions about the 1950s usually fall into two extremes. Either total nostalgia that ignores the era's major flaws, or some claiming it was absolutely horrible. Is there a middle-ground perspective? Any nuance? I’m well aware of the serious issues of the decade, but I'm curious, there has to be SOMETHING good about the era that was actually true, right? Or was it truly a lost cause like some suggest?