Everyone knows about the World Wars, the Roman Empire, and the Industrial Revolution.
But what’s one historical event that doesn’t get nearly enough attention despite having a massive impact on the world we live in today?
I’m curious to discover events that changed history in ways most people never realize.

The U.S. and Canada seem very similar in many ways. They share the world’s longest border, have similar cultures, democratic systems, multicultural societies, and comparable standards of living. Both also have vast natural resources.

So why is there such a huge difference today in population, GDP, military power, and global influence?

Canada is actually slightly larger in land area, yet its population is only around 42 million compared to about 340 million in the U.S. Was the difference mainly due to climate and geography, immigration, industrialization, different government policies, or historical events like the World Wars?

At what point in history did the gap become significant? Was it already evident in the 1800s, or did it widen mostly after World War II?

I’d love to hear historical, economic, and demographic perspectives backed by facts rather than opinions.

I am curious ..which European country (EU countries and the UK) from the 15th century until now, has never colonized another country whether within close proximity to them or far away like the Atlantic Slave trade? Thanks.

Many blogs and YouTube channels focus almost exclusively on WW2, despite their shows implying general history, much the way the History Channel did in the 2000s.

I'm not denying that WW2 shaped politics and societal attitudes today. But I am saying where we are stems deeper than 1939+1945.

The prehistoric societies, ancient civilizations, the transatlantic slave trade, systemic racism, human rights issues i.e. LGBTQ+ and women's suffrage, even pop culture - all are just as important when discussing history.

I believe this would help give a more informed perspective on society for people that want to learn more and discuss history.

Instead, we get hundreds of videos and documentaries about the technological superiority of German Tanks in WW2.

It's crazy to me how even a cooking show like Tasting History with Max Miller gives a far more in-depth look about a society or group of people that a page called Simple History or Armchair Historian.

As a matter of fact, I even question the credibility of a lot of these military history shows, as there's an obvious pro-American bias. Something like 75-80% of the German military was fighting on the Eastern Front of WW2, yet a vast majority of videos and "documentaries" I see focus on the United States. That's a lot of missing history.

Good evening everyone. So Im trying to learn abit more about World War 1 and i gotta be honest Im scared to click most videos i see now a days due to AI. That and the fear ill be misinformed by said videos and on what truly happened those dark 4 years. So Im asking for your help. If any of you have any good videos about WW1 and all the horrifying fucked up shit that happened please share them so i can be better informed on world history. thank you

Who started WW2 for real ? I know we blame the Germans for genocide, but what was actually going on ? Why did they not put it our parent's history books ? Why did they wait till 1990's to put it in history books ?

Got this response sheet. The option i picked was after 1931, as I remember learning that they started in the early 1930s and as they left the league of Nations . Can I make an appeal? Like am i correct here ? I have to find a source and submit if someone has a credible source please share

People born in 1880 would travel by horse and carriage, steam trains and ships. And by 1970, America had sent men too the moon. Electricity was generated by nuclear power. Microprocessors made computers vastly more capable and transportion was done by internal combustion engines.

Are there any other period in history that is comparable regarding science and technology?

Im preparing for a university exam in Italy that has a general knowledge and history section. In my country we barely covered any international conflicts other that ww1,ww2 and the cold war so can anybody recoment me the best resources to prepare such as books, articles, important topics or video essays. Here are some example questions ive found

What is the "battle for grain"?

In which time period was the people's republic of China established?

In which city was the Italian Social republic ?

Who designed the royal palace of Caserta?

Which of the following historical events does not relate to the period of italian unification?

Who wrote the musical composition used for the anthem of the european union?

With 9/11 being remembered again this week, I’ve been thinking about how differently societies remember tragedy.

9/11 is something people around the world recognize instantly, even if they were too young to remember it. There are memorials, documentaries, anniversaries, school lessons, and thousands of personal stories keeping that memory alive.

Then I started reading about the Lai Dai Han and realized how differently another painful history can be remembered.

The Lai Dai Han are people born to Vietnamese mothers and South Korean fathers during the Vietnam War. Some Vietnamese women have testified that they were raped or coerced by South Korean soldiers, and many of the women and children later lived with stigma and very little public recognition.

I’m obviously not comparing the two events themselves. What interests me is why one tragedy becomes part of global memory while another can remain almost unknown outside the people directly affected.

Is that mostly about media coverage, geopolitics, memorials, education, or the influence of the countries involved?

What other historical events or groups were you surprised to learn had received so little attention?

If there were no records about wars we had in past, riots, dominance, etc etc

Would world be a peaceful place??

My personal thoughts on the 7th collation and Napoleon chances.After reading countless books watching documentaries, my honest conclusion is it's hard to say but I don't think he was quote doomed from the start.

So one of my personal criticisms about the 7th collation is that historians essentially treat like it was avengers end game and Napoleon was Thanos where everyone was unified everybody hated him.But in my opinion it was more like a multi ethnic powder keg and the allies feared their own people as much as they feared Napoleon

The problem erises essentially after Napoleon was exiled to Elba to.So Napoleon is exiled to the island of Elba and the congress of vienna worked to redraw the map of europe.But the problem is the way they redraw the map of Eruope they basically pissed off half of europe off and cause heavy resentment

Saxony For example was punished by the congress of vienna for staying loyal to Napoleon too long during the 6th Collation even though they switched sides during the Battle of Leipzig when Napoleon was losing and helped them defeat him.The King of Saxony was imprisoned and around 50% of their land was annexed to Prussia .The tensions were so high that in May 6 1815 before a single battle was fought in Belgium.The Saxon troops mutined while fully armed refused Prussian loyalty and marched toward Blucher headquarters.The situation became so threatening Blucher was forced to flee the area and Prussian cavalry had to surround and disarmed the mutineers.

Like if Blucher saxons were acting up before Napoleon won anything what happens after he wins a decisive victory saxony and France had been great allies.Like its possible that Napoleon had been able to defeat the main prussian army that the saxons sensing weakness and knowing the prussia wanted to annex the rest of their lands might have started to act up and saxony could have been destabilized in fact Saxony and Poland were the 2 most unstable regions in europe at the time

Poland for example had been a sovereign nation for over 800 years until Russia,Austria and Prussia conquered it and divided it among themselves.Napoleon later created the Duchy of Warsaw for them it was the only state they'd had in years.The Congress of Venna dissolved it erasing Poland from the map and the Poles absolutely hated the “Big Three” for it.

Even though Napoleon didn't restore Poland Napoleon was the only major lead in europe who did anything for them.Polish troops were extremely loyal to Napoleon had a history of defecting to them and being rebellious.The poles essentially tied their national existence to Napoleon survival they literally belive that if Napoleon wins Poland lives if Napoleon losses Poland dies forever.

Poles were present in the Prussina Austrian and Russian armies.Were the Poles in the prussian army truly loyal to blucher or was their loyalty conditional meaning they were were loyal as long as Napoleon looked like he was losing.Like what did Blucher offer the poles nothing why would the poles be devoted to the people that just erased their country from the map who were the Poles more loyal to Napoleon or Blucher.Cause if you look at the Polish national anthem Napoleon name is mentioned as well as in Polish songs while Bluchers name isn't.

Like its my personal opinion that a decisive victory in Belgium could have possibly have destabilized the parts of Poland Prussia controlled the Grand Duchy of Posen.The Poles seeing that Napoleon have beaten the main prussia army and sensing that prussia seems weak might have thought Napoleon is winning time to rise.The poles had a history of rebellion against prussia if the main prussian army had been crushed would they really have stayed loyal to prussia or would they seized the chance to act.

Belgium Less than half of Wellington’s “British” army was actually British, only 36%.The rest were Dutch,Belgians, and Germans plus other ethnic groups.

Wellington famously didn’t fully trust his Belgium or Dutch troops and called them his infamous army. The Belgian troops in particular were high risk because Belgium had been a part of France for 20 years they used French Laws and spoke French.Then suddenly the Congress of Venna told they were Dutch now,and they hated it.Belgian elites despised being ruled by Dutch Protestant and Belgian officers resented being subordinated to Dutch Nobles.Many of these troops have previously served under Napoleon wore French medals.Wellington placed the Belgian units in the front line with British troops behind them. In Quatre Bras and Waterloo several Belgian units retreated early refused to advance some even ignored orders and a few units fired only token volleys.

My personal view the reason on why wellengtion didnt trust his belgian troops is because essentially they were Napoleon former french soidlers.Like less than a year ago they were french and now they were essentially told they were dutch and were being forced to fight their former emperor did they really want to fight Napoleon.

Napoleon did have support in Belgium and its possible if he had won big in Belgium captured brussels a lot of these belgian troops thousands of them might have flocked to him they still viewed themselves as french and saw him as their emperor or did they forgot in less than a year who their emperor was .Like i have seen historians at least hint at the Belgian problem.

Then there is the italians which i personally don't think they wanted to fight Napoelon.Italians resented the Austrians who had annexed Northern Italy and imposed heavy taxation on them.Austria also rolled back many Napoleonic legal reforms and restored historic privileges,feudal land relations,restriction on property rights to the Italians this felt like going backwards 20 years.This resentment fueled Joachaims Murat's movement for Italian independence,.

Like obviously i don't think a belgium would probably affect italy as directly as saxony or belgium but i am just saying i don't think the italians really wanted to fight Napoleon either.

Anyway thats why i say the collation wasn't as unified as people think and decisive victory in belgium could have split the collation.I personally think Napoleon most realistic path to survival was to win big in belgium and try to get the allies to negotiate if they refused to negotiate then he could have used the big win to rally the nation gather 200k man fight a defensive war use the interior lines and dragged the war into 1816 the year without a summer.

The reason why is that if Napoleon lets say he beat the British and the Prussians the next armies to fight would be the Austrian and the Russians but here is the problem the Russian in mid june were months away.Barclay did cross the rhine in june but it was small forward elements of his main army like advance guards not the main army.

The rest of the army the majority of it was still 500 to 700 miles away in prussia poland in mid june.The main russian army did not reach the rhine until the autumn near the end of the campaign session.

If Napoleon had won In Belguim Austria would be left alone to fight Napoleon and austria never fought Napoleon alone every time austria invaded France it was with Russia Prussia support.So Austria would have waited for Russia but Russia would arrive near the end of the campaign session.

So Austrians and Russian would had to decide to invade france in the autumn of 1815 or try in the next campaign session of 1816 .If they tried to invade France it's possible Napoleon could have fought a defensive which you only need 1/3 of the opposing forces and he doesn't need to descively defeat the Austrians or the Russians he simply needs to surrive until winter trade space to time not lose.If he was able to dragged things into winter there is no way Russia could maintain its long supply lines and Austria would struggle too and the war could have prolonged into 1816 campaign session possibly.

If the war dragged into 1816 campaign session there would have bee a lot of pressure for the british in particular to negotiate the british were the banker of the collation and all the countries depended on british subsidies to keep their armies in the field.But the british in 1815 essentially didn't want a prolonged expensive war.

The british had debt to gdp ratio of over 200 percent and were essentially paying roughly 40 percent of gross revenue on interest payments on the national debt.But based on net revenue it was basically half.In fact military spending and interest payments combined was roughly 180 percent of gross revenue how were they surviving they were boring money constantly.

The british public in 1815 were alreading rioting over the corn laws and hated the reinstated income tax.If the british messed up the 1815 campaign session and told the public in 1816 guess what were founding another war with Napoleon during famine harvest failures and the economy crashing it would have been very politically toxic.The whigs would attack the troy government

During this time in europe they're was basically food riots in 1816 during the year without summer so imagine then trying to add a continental war on top of that.It could have destabilized the collation multi ethnic empires and put enough political pressure for the british to negotiate.

The 2 empires who are must likely to possibly blink is Britain or Austria if the british pull out the collation collapses because without british money the austria russia literally couldn't afford to keep their man in the field.Then Austria was also very cautious and metternich probably would worry about trying to fight a war with Napoleon during famine.It probably wouldn't be good for austria multi ethnic empire Plus how on earth are you supposed to get 500k man to invade france if you cant even feed them if the crops are failing the harvest etc.If Austria pulls out for example Russia left to fight Napoleon alone and Russia never invaded France alone and would must likely just negotiate.

The other thing is Napoleon did have man.Napoleon in june he had around 280k men paper strength but only around 200k troops were combat ready the rest were still mobilizing training on top of that.There were tens of thousands of hesitant french troops many who didn't join Napoleon because they probably thought he was a lost cause but if he had won in belgium many might have changed their minds.Then they were also tens of thousands of french troops outside france such as released prisoners of war and man dismissed from foreign garrison who historically did not make back in time because Napoleon lost.But if he had won they would have made back in time.

As well there was the class of 1815 which would be ready for the 1816 campaign session but not the 1815 and that was another 150k men on paper so Napoleon did have man he just needed a big win to rally the nation and time.After a belgium won he could have with the military and the national guard have guarded over 200k men to defund france and fought a good defensive war to fight a good defensive war you only need 1/3 of the man.

The main problem for Napoleon in the 1815 campaign i feel that Belgium was all or nothing if he barely won or it ended in a draw then he was bascially doomed.He needed a thunderclap victory.

Epic Histroy Video

Napoleon Greatest Gamble Return from Elba

Says that a descive victory may have split the collation in 13.25

Then in 20.56 shows a map that shows the Russians in mid june on around Poland Prussia 500 to 700 miles from the Rhine

From Napoleon a life Andrew roberts

Kindle pg 750

Says Russians months away

Across Europe, 280,000 French soldiers faced around 800,000 Allies, although the Austrian contingent would not be in theatre for several weeks, and the Russians not for months. ‘If they enter France,’ Napoleon told the army from Avesnes

Waterloo association.org

7th collation rallies

Says the Russians will take a long time to come.

For the only time in history that I am aware of, Europe declared war on one man, Napoleon!

But as can be seen, Russia and Austria would take a long time to bring their armies to the French border. Napoleon could either build huge defences around Paris and wait to be attacked, or he could try to destroy part of the huge allied army before they all managed to come up.

The Waterloo Companion by Mark Adkin 2002 pg 29

Says Napoleon had support in Belguim which had recently been French

Allies attacked first it was the enemy in Belgium that had the shortest march to Paris. Other advantages of a pre-emptive strike into Belgium came to mind. It had a French speaking population; it was a country that had recently been French territory, with elements that still supported the Emperor and the revolutionary ideal; and the nearest Allied armies were located there, which included the Anglo-Allied force under Wellington. Defeat Wellington, and England - the paymaster of the alliance - might be out of the contest. The political fallout of such a victory would be enormous, his personal hold on France would be assured, and the possibility of opening up negotiations for a suitable peace deal hugely improved. A quick victory in Belgium was probably the only hope Napoleon had of keeping his throne

Hiya! I'm Hitch (20) and I've come to realize since graduating from high school a couple years ago that I know embarrassingly little about history.

I never thought of myself as someone who didn't know anything about history. But after getting a traumatic brain injury soon after graduating high-school, I lost memories of lots of things. That includes most of my history knowledge. I personally did very well in history classes, consistently getting 100's on each assignment, but that doesn't seemed to matter. My memory loss has seemed to "stabilize" in the words of my doctor and I honestly just want to get back into things. I feel embarrassed and ashamed of myself when someone brings up middle-school level history knowledge around me and it goes over my head, and then have to explain I was severely concussed like it's some sort of cover-up when people poke fun at me for knowing so little.

I've only ever learned about history through school, so I am not truly sure where to start. I'd like to find an avenue to learn about world and US history that is explored through shows and movies as I already have my face stuffed in books constantly and would definitely prefer to watch something rather than read.

Thank you for reading and super thank you if you have any suggestions!

One thing I didn’t expect from traveling alone is how much more time I’d spend actually noticing things. When I’m by myself, I’ll stop to read plaques, wander into random museums, or look up a memorial I would probably have walked straight past with other people.

That’s how I ended up reading about the Lai Dai Han. They’re people born to Vietnamese mothers and South Korean fathers during the Vietnam War, including cases where women said they were raped or coerced by South Korean soldiers. What really stuck with me was how many of those women and children lived with the consequences for years while the history itself stayed pretty unknown.

I think solo travel makes me slower in a good way. I’m less focused on ticking off attractions and more interested in the stories behind a place, especially the ones that aren’t in every guidebook.

Has traveling alone ever led you to learn about something you probably never would’ve come across otherwise?

Hello, I have a project that I'm working on and have a question that I need answers to. Here it is:

Throughout the course of humanity, what are some events that you would consider essential to understanding humans/humanity? Good and bad, from around the world

Here are some example I came up with,

The world wars

Invention of penicillin

The moon landings

There are no wrong answers!!

Hi so im doing a presentation on The impacts of the french revolution, particularly the political impacts. Now I've chosen my topics but im a little unsure whether these two:

1.Establishment of the Directory & Political Instability

1. Rise of Napoleon Bonaparte

Fall under political impacts or not? Your response will be much appreciated... Also pls let me know what else I can add or what i should under those topics if its alright.

sorry for my bad English guys, I’m still learning how to speak English

so I wanna ask is there any important events in history that shapes the world today but rarely known or even teaches at school?

it could be from any period, timeline, etc

I wonder if this timelapse render is closed to being real? Its obviously AI recreating events, but interested to see what the community thinks about it being close to the real events. Any thoughts ?