Happy Wednesday everyone!

Just wrapped up King of Kings: The Triumph and Tragedy of Emperor Haile Selassie I of Ethiopia l, and it was fantastic. The book does an excellent job conveying the Selassie's biography, from as close to an objective perspective as I've seen. Highly recommend this one!

woah...that's news to me...
I thought a bastard could inherit if the king had no issues or siblings or close relatives (uncles, 1st/2nd cousins) but seems like they will be totally ignored in any case and a very distant relative would be preferred over them any day..
By the way, i have read somewhere that Henry VIII didn't have any legitimate son until...well...Edward VI popped out and before that he was planning to designate Henry FitzRoy (his bastard through Elizabeth Blount) as his heir.
Is this somewhat true?

[removed]

[removed]

The Lancastrian phase of the Hundred Years' War: English vs. Armagnac/Dauphinist French and then there were the Burgundian French who were sometimes allies of the two other sides.

Also, the Russian Civil War. The two main factions were the Reds and the Whites, but there was also various separatists, the Allied and Central Powers, Black Army, and the so-called Green armies of peasants.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

I guess it doesn't hurt to see if anyone has recommendations for Marxist reads. Also academic historiography on fascism, specially fascism in South America, I intend to study fascism in Brasil. Not sure if it will happen but who knows, new doc new pills.

I’m looking for books about daily life and material culture in pre-20th century America. Anything about the boring day to day stuff that political biographies miss. How did normal people live/love/eat/sleep/hang out? Or diaries from that era. I love the journal of Nicholas cresswell for example

I've hit a rut in my Ancient Roman history. I've read everything by Goldsworthy, Holland, Mary Beard, and Anthony Everitt. I have been reading some academic papers (not my field, but like them) and am trying to get recommendations that:

• Are by academic historians along the lines of Mary Beard. Any topic.
• Roman military historians writing about specific rather than broad topics (Particular campaign, or era, etc)
• Any really interesting academic publications you've come across (DOI please?)

I want to learn more about early cultures like andronovo (and especially about andronovo). Can anyone suggest readings on them? Thanks.

[removed]

Just started reading Cold War: A New History by John Lewis Gaddis. It's an average length book but god damn it puts a lot of information in that short length, have to keep rereading paragraphs as its overwhelming my brain.

Bought my dad the book The Road Not Taken by Max Boot for his birthday, it's a HUGE book! Wouldn't be surprised if he'll finish it and then it'll be his next birthday!

The author and the date are both significant: Khomeini went far further than most of the religious leadership in his opposition to the Shah's personal rule, and here he's simultaneously proclaiming the illegitimacy of the then regime and the need for clerical leadership of a new state. It's really the moment when the outlines of the post-1979 order are first laid out.

But it wasn't always always thus: the clergy had held the Safavid dynasty in high regard (reciprocating its promotion of clerical authority), and even after viewing its successors as usurpers, senior religious figures made their peace with the Shah after the 1953 coup before their falling-out in the 1960s gave the already outspoken Khomeini his opportunity to claim spiritual leadership of the opposition movement.

Nor was Khomeini's authoritarian clericalist take characteristic of past anti-regime religious sentiment, senior religious figures often siding from the 1890s with popular protest movements (to some extent foreshadowing 1979) and being associated with the 1906-11 constitutionalist movement and (at least for a time) the parliamentary cause in the early 1950s. The republic's eventual form was in part a historical accident, Khomeini emerging just as an earlier generation of leaders was passing from the scene.

I am interested in learning more Belgium history. Any good resources on this topic?

Team of Rivals — a complete and detailed history of the Lincoln era. Doris Kearns Goodwin

Killing the Mob — A look into the infectious influence of the mob/corruption. Bill O’Reilly

Germany lost in every sense, even technically - as said, it's just a lie spread by those who couldn't accept defeat and sought an excuse.

The Wars of the Diadochi (323-275 BCE)... absolute pandemonium.

Hello y'all, I just finished a Nixon Biography and it really piqued my interest about 20th century US politics, so I wanted to ask if there's any recommendations. I'm European and usually read books about European history, but I have a solid base when it comes to American history. I'm especially interested in elections and Party politics. stuff like nixons southern strategy or the party switch, failed presidential candidates as well as third party candidates and things like the new deal coalition. Also social issues like segregation or economic ones like the rise of neoliberalism. All of this in the time frame from including FDR to including Bill Clinton.

If anyone can recommend me books that touch on as many as these topics as possible, even if they initially don't go in depth, I would be very thankful. I can always look for a specific topic later if I find something that really interests me, but right now I would like to get a broad overview first.

Thank you very much and I hope all of you have a nice day

He has foreseen it all with the help of cataract.

Whisky is an anglicised version of the Gaelic uisge beathe which - just like the Latin aqua vitae - means "water of life".

>Can anybody explain what it is about monarchies that the Iranian regime is so opposed to?

Perhaps if the monarchy hadn't been, or hadn't been seen as, the puppet of foreign interests, Iranians wouldn't have had such a dislike for it. I'm not sure that the type of government Iran had mattered so much as how it operated. An autocratic government is one thing, but subjecting people to that, political/religious repression, inflation, corruption, and violence made revolution inevitable. If the government had ostensibly been a democracy, the result would have been the same, and the succeeding rulers would have denounced democracy in a similar fashion.

>I find this confusing because it seems to me that the present-day Iranian theocracy is very similar to a monarchy itself.

Superficially, yes, and you can argue that perhaps the theocracy is merely a means to an end for some who seek power, but I don't think it's possible to claim that the systems are the same because you have observed one similarity. In a monarchy a ruler can, within some unofficial limitations, make whatever decisions they wish and are not accountable to a higher authority, nor do their decisions have to come from, or be in line with, precedent. In a theocracy, religion informs the rule of the state, and there are conventions, lines of reasoning, and established precedent for virtually all decisions that do not equate to "Because I say so." from a supreme ruler. Whether it is done sincerely, or as an excuse, is another matter.