I am not sure about this, but almost all across history religions have some form of clergy that maintain the religion, receive worshippers providing them with comfort or helping them in other ways. My guess is that Arab paganism is not any different. It must’ve had priests or sorcerers that handled the worship of god like Allat and Hubal among many others. So, what was their reaction to Islam and what happened to them? Were they wiped out of history as mentions of them are very little in early Islamic history.

The Anglophonic countries have tighter economic, military and intelligence ties with each other that could probably have been rivalled by only one federation before, the USSR post 1991 had they maintained good ties with the nations previously under their sway. Unfortunately they squandered it in the most disastrous way possible.

However why wasn't there ever a Lusophone or Francophone alliance which could rival the Anglophone sphere? Even today, Portugal or Spain would never be willing to set up a 5 eyes kind of framework with Brazil or Argentina. Is this mere distrust? Is there some kind of leftover racial purity/dominance thing where the European countries see their New World counterparts as somewhat lower down the rung?

Why aren't there deeper military ties? (disregarding the whole French Legion doing its own thing in French speaking Africa, much to the chagrin of those nations).

Thinking to the various guilds in fantasy, like the Rogues guild, Merchants guild, and of course the most influential of all the Adventurer's guild, were there any actual historical basis or predecessor to them?

Obviously it's unlikely that a historically accurate guild won't have bounties, receptionist, and adventure rankings, but maybe some parts of the concept are taken from actual historical facts

Correction: there*

WW1 started because of the assassination of Ferdinand but at what point was it called WW1? Right after his murder? When certain countries joined?

Same with WW2.

When will we know when we’re in WW3? Will the news say it? Congress? The president?

Hello everyone! As is well known, there are census records for Austria-Hungary for the years 1900 and 1910. Since my ancestors come from Galicia, I am very interested in these records. Does anyone know if the people in these censuses are listed with their surnames, given names, and ages, and if they can only be accessed locally or elsewhere?

I understand that "Dr." is now a widely recognized title for medical doctors and those with doctoral degrees, but I’m curious about its history. When did this practice start, and was it originally used for medical practitioners, academics, or someone else entirely? How has its usage evolved over time?

Hello,

I have seen some videos on youtube(I will not give the person's name), where the person discusses how early christianism tried to vilify pagan religions by saying that their gods with horns were actually devils/demons.The person also says that the pagan practices of these people were viewed as satanic witchcraft by the christians, and that is where the belief in witchcraft comes from, and trials such as the spanish inquisition were the christians killing pagans.

So, is there mention of witchcraft and horned devils by christians before the christians meet the pagans? And if you allow me to say, I think this person is being a little antagonic toward christians.Also, were the witch trials victims pagans practicing the old ways?

Thanks.

There‘s been a lot of questions about that time and place in this sub and it has reminded me of the argument between illan pappé and benny morris. Apart from the personal insults between the two, pappé raised one point that has stuck with me regarding the question of source material.

My understanding or assumption of the situation is, that zionists had to have working institutions to even begin settling in Palestine. Obviously, institutions produce reports, archives and internal and external communication. Zionists also had publications to report about their cause and inform the jewish diaspora. From what I know, the level of institutionalization in the emerging palestinian national movement was in it’s infancy in comparison. If I remember correctly, Pappé had argued that Morris would strictly adhere to IDF reports, excluding the testimony of Palestinians involved. So my question would be more general: how do the different practices of documenting and archiving (if they are significant) affect our current understanding of the early history of the region? (1900-1948 to be a little more precise)

Usually when a geoup of people colonize or enslave a group of people they become racist against those group of people. This makes me wonder were the Moors racist to Europeans? Any historical text or evidence that they was racist towards them ?

I recently watched Return of the King (fantasy), but The Riders of Rohan seems to clear out the orcs quickly. It is a movie, but it got me thinking: was cleverly really that effective?

As someone who is Ashkenazi Jewish, I have long been curious about the early history of Ashkenazi Jewish communities. In the Hebrew Bible, term "Ashkenaz" is used several times throughout. What I am interested in is trying to figure out, not what this word meant in the context of the writers of the Hebrew Bible, but rather it what location it is meant to refer to in the context of Ashkenazi Jews. I used to always think it was referring to what is now Germany. However, in a controversial genetic study, the link to which I will list below, a claim is made that the term "Asheknaz" in the context of Ashkenazi Jews is not referring to Germany but instead to what is now eastern Turkey and Iran. Does this claim have any credence among historians?

Here is the study which makes the claim: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/genetics/articles/10.3389/fgene.2017.00087/full

This question was asked by a student of mine regarding his research of Lao Tzu.

I was wondering since i'm currently researching Lao Tzu (Laozi) and his life but there are 2 things I noticed are contradicting, it traditionally says he was teaching in 6th century BCE, but in the Shinji it states some parts of his biography which was written in 100 BCE which confuses me since he couldn't have been 400 years old. Could someone please clarify or is it just some big Chinese history mystery?

Video games often employ a rock-paper-scissors logic for combat. Essentially, infantry beats lancers, lancers beat cavalry, cavalry beats archers, and archers beat infantry. This design makes games more playable and easier to understand. However, it makes me curious.

Looking at historical examples, it seems that some leaders managed to create a unit so effective and use it so strategically that it could dominate almost any opponent. For example, Caesar with legionaries, Alexander with the Companion Cavalry, and Genghis Khan with mounted archers. (I understand their armies had diverse compositions, but I’m referring to the emphasis on a specific type of unit.)

So, my question is: Is there any truth to the infantry > lancers > cavalry > archers > infantry trope? Can we make a generalization in this regard?
(I'm referring to pre-gunpowder history)

I've seen Civil War loyalties determined by geographical realities less so sectarian splits on a family level. I know there were Southerners who remained loyal to the Union. I'm pretty sure I heard Robert E Lee had a cousin who served in the U.S navy. But I don't see some farmer family from Illinois or Texas having one son pro-Seccesion and another pro-Union. I've always imagined the "average" family being mostly of one mind on politics.

I was just re-watching the excellent John Adams miniseries and enjoying the scene where John Adams is presented to King George III as the new American Ambassador. The dialogue is lifted straight from Adams' account of the event, and when I listened this time, much of what the King said seemed to have a strong, almost sarcastic, double meaning. Some examples from Adams' account:

The Circumstances of this Audience are so extraordinary, the language you have now held is So extremely proper, and the Feelings you have discovered, So justly adapted to the Occasion...

The King would've been aware that John Adams was a principle author of the Declaration of Independence, but Adams is now being so proper and cordial in this audience. The parts I highlighted almost sound like he's insinuating Adams has had a rather abrupt change of heart.

I am very glad the Choice has fallen upon you to be their Minister

I'm sure this was probably just diplomatic nicety here, but John Adams was specifically targeted as someone not eligible for a pardon from the crown in the early days of the Revolution. It seems like he was known to them and not particularly liked.

The real kicker though, was the last thing the King said, which almost seems scathing. Quoting Adams' letter:

 "I must avow to your Majesty, I have no Attachments but to my own Country." The King replied, as quick as lightning “An honest Man will never have any other.”

It's hard for me to imagine that the irony of this exchange was an accident.

Everywhere I read, though, seems to frame the meeting as perfectly cordial and the exchanges as frank, honest, and at face value. Am I reading too much into this?

Richard of Cornwall was elected as Holy Roman Emperor in 1257, and is noted as the only English emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. While looking into it, I realized that this period, of about 1245-1275 was a particularly turbulent period for the Holy Roman Empire, with competing claims, uncertainty over the succession more generally after Frederick II and his sons from a cursory examination and the brief Hollander-Hessian situation where the County of Holland had its count elected as King of Germany, and the Hessians were able to (briefly) create an anti-King for about a nine months.

What was it about this period that made the end of Hohenstaufen control of the Holy Roman Empire volatile enough that there were (seemingly) co-existent crowns? More interestingly though, what made Richard (and his opposing anti-King, Alfonso of Castille) particularly popular as distinct outsiders to the Holy Roman Empire. Was it a case that they were the prime candidates because of their foreignness? It just seems rather curious since I always assumed that candidates had to be from within the Holly Roman Empire/the nominal medieval kingdom of Germany or its associated lands.

The nearest rationale for claiming for Richard appears to be through distant familial ties to Frederick II, and Alfonso's claim as predicated on maternal descent of Philip of Swabia via his mother, Elisabeth. Were these competing blood/marriage ties really strong enough to make them the only viable contenders, or was something else going on that prevented any of the other Electors, or any other German state for that matter, from putting forth a German candidate?

I’ve heard of this used as a justification for subjecting dark skinned people, but on what basis? How did it become linked to Africans? Does it include darker Indians?

If yes, how is this national identity defined? Can it be achieved by means of a non authoritarian power? For example, does the EU need to achieve a national identity in order to be a well functioning economy and a unified state? If so, what would this identity consist of and would it need authoritarian means in order to be achieved? The historian Qian Mu from the Republic of China quotes ‘an authoritarian government can be the cradle of a civilization’, I wonder if this is exclusively true and why.

Was it a matter of the tanks rolled in and they just picked a convenient spot in the woods, or was the land bought by the Reich or it's supporters in some manner?

On one hand, I read that the pike phalanx disappeared with the rise of the roman legion. And that the pike was on the rise with the advent of gunpowder (until artillery came, but that's another story).

On the other hand, I also read that in medieval times, in europe, virtually everyone had a spear. The spear never went away, it's among the cheapest weapon you can get, and by the nature of feudal armies, you can't expect your average soldier to have something else (like a sword, which requires extensive training)

To be even more precise, my question is : what is the equipment of men-at-arms that were not knights (i.e did not have the means of the noble class)?

It's pretty much agreed that the armor was a step below the knight's full armor (so brigandine and such). But for the weapons, I can't find an answer. I know that men-at-arms would master multiple types of weapons. But if I were to see the men-at-arms at Poitiers, Crecy or Agincourt, what exactly would they be using?

By elimination, are they using a shield and spear/halberd, with a sword as a side weapon?

I"m very curious as I know he is controverisal, but he seems to have had a crazy amount of influence on the Nixon administration, and Nixon must have seen something in him to make him NSA and Secretary of State at the same time.

Many thanks for any info

This is a worldwide phenomenon, but it seems to have been most extensively used in the United States. See Hattie Caraway, Muriel Humphrey, Maryon Allen, and Rose Long for just a few examples from the Senate.

On one hand, I can see why a party might want an uncontroversial appointment that shows support for the deceased. But this was also a time when women were otherwise not encouraged to seek political office, and typically these appointed women had no political expertise. So where does the idea come from?

Thinking of people like Julia Domna and Julia Maesa. Maybe there isn't a trend at all but it seems notable.

As the title says. I was just wondering, as I've been reading about strikes and the rise of unions in the late 19th century for one of my classes. I don't have the best knowledge of the Medieval era nor much of the Early Modern Era, so I was just wondering if anything close to the idea of labor unions existed in feudal and pre-capitalist societies.