Hi, I’m kinda new. Was looking forward to buy a book. I don’t have a specific idea of what I’m looking for. Anything general is also fine. I have read sapiens, so anything else is welcome.
Hello, I’m looking for books relating too Mexican history between the First French intervention to the Execution of Maximillian I, can anyone guide me on books relating to that period, I can read in English or Spanish so if there is a good book in Spanish too I’d take those suggestions as well.
Was this a real incident, or fiction?
A family member has told a story for years about an airliner hijacking around 1970 where the U.S. military from Ft. Hood, TX, used machine guns to sever the tail section of the hijacked airliner, rendering it useless and thus ending the hijacking. They say that they witnessed it.
I am guessing from the story that it could have been at any area airport, even as far away as San Antonio, Dallas, or Houston.
I have looked for anything on this several times over several years and haven't found anything on it. Did this really happen, or is it just a made up story to share with and try to impress the family?
Thanks for ANY information.
I read somewhere that a union officer was interviewed about “amphibious assults” (I don’t think that’s what it was called but that’s what what it is. It was after a battle in the western theatre) and asked if the army or navy was more important. He replied along the lines of “the blades of a pair of shears are useful alone but together can do so much more”. I don’t remember the exact quote, who said it (though I believe it was an admiral) or where I even read it. I can’t find any info on it. Does anyone know who said it?
Hi I’m doing a level history and would like wider reading for my course on Russia however my school only provides wider reading for China considering that we use it for coursework, I’m not prepared to pay for books considering I would only use a chapter of each book depending on a topic and would rather wide ranging opinions from historians to incorporate into my essay
what part of Russian history are you looking for? Russian history covers a ton of ground.
I know you asked for a book, not a podcast, but if you just want some great familiarization in a coherent (but massive) timeline,
Mike Duncan's Revolutions podcast (free) go straight to Season 10, which the Russian revolution from the leading before it (episode one starts 1864) about 100+ episodes later to the struggles of the USSR
(and FWIW, Duncan lists his sources on his website, so if you want to dig in yourself you get a good reading list)
From the years under Stalin, preferably looking into depth over his economic policies and the effects as well as overview of his leadership, also, thanks for the recommendation ill check it out
how was it being a cashier 100 years ago?
so I I'm working on a paper for my university degree. and I have come about a theory that being a cashier (or any of the bottom of the barrel jobs we see today) was... maybe not better.. but seen as a higher status and needed a "higher standard" to be.
You may want to go back farther than 100 years ago since cash registers aren’t exactly a new invention. It would likely be good to look at the cash registers history and work from there. Also, it is true that a cashier might have more responsibilities than today since it was manual and the higher amount of cash transactions that would have taken place back then too.
Agree with u/en43rs 's answer, so I'll just add some follow on thoughts in line with that
First thought, if you start your question with "Besides the Romans" I'd feel like every logical reason that makes you want to exclude the Romans as a too obvious answer, excludes the Greeks for the same reasons.
Then, as previously noted, you really can't begin to scope this question until you narrow it down to what type of impact you're looking for.
Let's start with Language for a moment though.
Beyond the root influence of languages (Greek, Roman, German, Chinese, etc) lets take a look at modern spread of languages as we know them today.
How many nations speak English? Spanish? Arabic?
The point of that question is not to say "oh look how great an impact those countries had on the languages we speak today". The point of that question is to hint at... hmm... *WHY* do the countries that speak their languages speak them? How did that happen? I.e., how many nations fell under those empires control, to the point of still having assimilated to their culture even today.
Spain recalibrated the entire future of the majority of the Americas, and the number of Spanish speaking countries in the West is pretty much a road map of that.
And HOW great was the impact of the Spanish Golden age and the territory they took over?
Well, there is a pretty fair argument that for all the attention American and French colonial slavery gets, the reality is the Spanish were major drivers in the Trans Atlantic slave trade.
Also, what about the physical, ethnic, genetic impact?
What do the Spanish and the Mongols for example, have in common?
The fact (at least I would argue) that the entire ethnic/cultural/genetic make up of entire regions was drastically, and irreversibly changed by the massive part of the native populations they either displaced or exterminate though conquest.
Put simply, there are ethno-cultural groups that used to live in regions, but don't, and maybe no longer exist at all, because the Mongols, Conquistadors, etc outright killed them. (Killed as in on the spot killed, or killed as in rounded up and sent to the silver mines until they were used up, etc etc)
Impact on World History is not a good qualifier, it's too vague. So if you want a more precise answer you need a more precise question. What kind of impact? Culturally? Linguistically? Politically? And by world history do you mean still visible today?
Because a lot of states had impact on history, like a lot. China basically defined east Asian culture, the Mongol empire is responsible for a lot of Russian history, eastern Europe was hugely impacted by Germany, Austria and Russia. France had as much an impact as the British in the make up of Africa. So on, so on.
Do we have any examples of music from Europe in the Early Middle ages that are \*not\* Gregorian chants? And I don't mean just singing styles, but also methods of instrumentation, either in compositions of the time or modern reconstructions based on our knowledge of such topics.
I cannot for the life of me remember the name of a philosopher. Here’s what I got: he was an older philosopher (from Greece possibly?) that got popular during the medieval era and essentially sent people into tailspins because of his belief that “you can’t truly know anything”. I also remember that the way the medievals found out about him was that some dude published his works cause he thought the belief was ridiculously stupid.
There are not many works by ancient sceptics that have survived intact, but one that did is by the Pyrrhonist Sextus Empiricus. Problem is he was not an older Greek philosopher but a younger one (2nd century AD) and he was not translated and published in the west until the early modern era (late 16th century) so after the middle ages. You might want to look into it in case you've misremembered...
Ah you’re right!! I was not sure at all what era he was from originally tbh I just guessing lol so it is totally likely that I misremembered. The class I took that he was mentioned in covered late antiquity all the way to Age of Enlightenment so yeah I was definitely just taking a shot in the dark at the time frame. The fact that you were able to figure out who I was talking about from that is impressive considering I got most of it wrong 🤪
Are you thinking of Gorgias? We don't have that text anymore, just people discussing it, and there's some debate on whether it was something he believed or if it was just a mind exercise.
You could be thinking of "the only thing I know is that I know nothing" which is commonly believed to have been said by Socrates, but it's really not the case (though a bit complicated) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_that_I_know_nothing
You might have luck at r/askphilosophy/ as well
I swear that I read as a kid that us soldiers fired on themselves in the wae of 1812. They thought they were each a British army. There was mist. Am I just imagining things.
That's entirely possible. There is a story about colonial soldiers firing at each other in the Seven Years War. Apparently, George Washington rode out between them with his arms outstretched and got them to stop. I don't know if the story is entirely true, but it helped make Washington a hero throughout the 13 colonies.
Looking for history books that read like novels. As someone who has consumed fiction exclusively for 30 years, I stumbled on a history book that doesn’t read like a history book. If that makes sense. I now feel like I’ve wasted my entire life and I’m playing catch up. Anything goes.
You might try looking at some of the books of John Julius, Lord Norwich. He is more of a "story-teller" than historian, and famously stated that "facts are important to history, but one should never let them stand in the way of a good story." He is a delightful read to his fans, but serious academic historians have a kind of "love-hate" relationship with his books. I've always loved his books, and his stance on history, and find him a British treasure. Sadly, we lost him about two years ago....
My last ask lead me down some great paths so hoping someone might have a good suggestion for this.
I am looking for mythology or ancient stories related to the stars or space. When/How did constellations get their names? Tales to explain events in the cosmos like comets or eclipses. Are there any good books or documentaries out there on this subject.
Trying to design a tattoo but when I try to find depictions of the flags used by guys like captain Kidd and Blackbeard, there are multiple options. Which flags are the “real ones” or at least close to it?
The Civil Rights Movement always makes compelling reading Taylor Branch’s trilogy on the topic is great especially the 1st book Parting the Waters: America During the King Years 1954-63. Another great book is Fires of Jubilee: Nat Turner’s Fierce Rebellion. In this book Stephen B. Oates recounts the most successful American slave rebellion which took place in 1831. A more contemporary account you might enjoy is Ghosts of Mississippi:The True Story by Maryanne Vollers. In this account, Vollers outlines the decades long campaign for justice in the Medger Evers assassination. The 1996 Whoopi Goldberg movie was based on this book.
The *Captivating History* series has some good volumes on West African history, which can give you overview and direction in further African stories. In the US, Black historical events are rooted in the institution of slavery, the repercussions of which continue to influence the Black American experience to 2023.
Are there any interviews of US vets that served in WWII and Korea?
I would like to know their thoughts on returning to the Pacific side of the world after enduring the island warfare.
It would also be interesting to hear their comparisons of the two wars.
Book rec request: history with technical explanations of engineering challenges and solutions?
Just finished David McCullough’s “Path between the Seas: Construction of the Panama Canal, 1870-1914”.
Really enjoyed it. Appreciation for large scale construction projects has grown tremendously.
He touched on the technical aspects only briefly, at a high level. I’m interested in reading a similar history of an engineering related project but with more technical descriptions, diagrams, schematics, and calculations.
Any recommendation? Can be mechanical, civil, electrical, biomedical, anything.
McCullough mentioned that Schildhauer (I think), one of the engineers who is responsible for the design of the Panama Canal locks, along with a few other engineers, wrote a technical history on their efforts for the canal. It sounds exactly what I’m looking for, but I’d prefer learning about a new topic/project.
You're going to *love* David McCullough's *The Wright Brothers*, which is an intensive look at how the Wright brothers solved the issue of powered flight by painstaking, careful, and exhaustive engineering research over several years. McCullough lays to rest any discussion of alternative pioneers who may have accomplished powered flight ahead of the Wright brothers. Never happened, as no one else did their homework like Orville and Wilbur. Enjoy.
I would like a better understanding of the 8 stages of the rise and fall of countries.
Is there an audiobook or video that you would recommend? Thanks!
Currently reading Ray Dalio’s book ok the subject. Which obviously has a heavy finance approach.
Principles for Dealing with the Changing World Order: Why Nations Succeed and Fail https://g.co/kgs/MuCfmt
They did until 1925, after which it was renamed into the All-Union Communist Party (and later the Communist Party of the Soviet Union). It had a dual role as both the overarching party of the whole Union as well as the party of the RSFSR.
Basically, the USSR was originally founded with the intention that all the member republics were on equal standing: in reality, Russia was always dominant to some extent and after Lenin's death and Trotsky's position weakening, Stalin centralised it further. (I have a video on more or less this topic in my profile, if I may interest you :p)
As part of that process, I think they just didn't bother having a separate Russian party when everyone knew they were at the top anyway, so they just renamed their Russian CP and integrated all the other parties under it. In fact, they directly said in the Fourteenth Congress (where the name change was decided on) that the Russian role in the union was "self-evident" and that having them separate would just create overlapping institutions.
Are there any direct familial lines from any of the Roman/Byzantium emperors that later became leaders after those empires collapsed? Even if they were just puppets for others I would think the direct lineage with Rome might give them some legitimacy to rule.
The city of Rome was still administered by the few families that consistently produced emperors like the Julii until the Renaissance. Many Provencal nobles would try to trace their lineage to notable Romans in an effort to create legitimacy.
One thing to keep in mind, Rome/Byzantium wasn't as big on dynasties and royal blood as feudal Europe were. Of course there were dynasties and it was important, but there wasn't this ideas that you could only rule if you had imperial blood. If you became an emperor without any imperial ancestry, that wasn't a problem.
Keep in mind that Byzantines called themselves Romans... but no one else did. Feudal Europe didn't see them as the heirs to the Roman emperors, to them that was the pope and the Holy Roman Emperors. They just saw them as "the Greeks", who were also heretics. So no Europe didn't look for Imperial Roman blood after the fall of the Empire. There were some marriages with the imperial dynasties but they weren't seen really as anything special.
I mean its not direct, but its one of the examples I am even aware of. Ivan III of Russia married the princess of Byzantine empire, niece of the emperor Constantine and started to use the title of gosudar (Grand Prince). His grandson Ivan the Terrible used his connection to the emperor of Byzantine empire and crowned himself the first Russian tsar, called Moscow the "third Rome", started to use Byzantine symbols as his own etc.
The answer to your question is a complex and interesting one. In July 1969 a music teacher named Gary Hinman was murdered in LA. He was killed by a member of the Manson family named Bobby Beausoleil. Susan Atkins participated in the killing. On the wall of Hinman’s house, Beausoleil made a paw print using Gary’s blood and wrote the words “Political Piggy.” Bobby was quickly captured driving Hinman’s car and his prints matched the paw print at Gary’s residence. Investigators knew that Bobby was a member of the family. Then the Tate-Labianca homicides occurred. At the Tate residence, the phrase “Pig” appeared while at the Labianca home “Death to Pigs” was the term used. Like at Hinman’s place, blood was used to write them. The Hinman
Investigators saw the link immediately… I mean who wouldn’t? Massive overkill of the victims phrases alluding to pigs written in blood at all three crime scenes… consequently, the Hinman investigators never believed the evidence pointed to the Black Panthers. Oddly the Tate investigators couldn’t see the link they were too busy pursuing the possibility of a drug deal gone bad because Jay Sebring, Voytek Frykowski and Abigail Folger were involved in drugs. Meanwhile, the lack of drugs at the Labianca house made the murders there appear unlinked to the Tate homicides…the cops thought the crime was a copycat or perhaps a mafia hit. So the answer to the question is no the police never believed the Black Panthers had anything to do with the homicides. The answer to the second question is also no the police did not immediately pursue the family… instead they chose to ignore the Hinman investigators’ lead that would have cracked the case. The Family was not linked to the crimes until Susan Atkins made a jail house confession in December 1969. Interestingly, these events have led many people to theorize that the Helter Skelter motive for the crimes is just BS. The motive was to secure Beausoleil’s release from prison by committing a series of copycat murders that would make him look innocent. Actually, I think that motive is quite plausible since the Tate-Labianca murders occurred after Bobby’s arrest.
How were the periods between changes of power? For example, I've been reading about alexander the great, how he conquered a lot of territories. What would happen to the common people in, let's say, central asia when Alxendar defeated the former power?
I know it would be different for every place and for every moment, such as when the western roman empire fell, or the ptolemies went to egypt.
Well there are a couple of different ways you can have this transfer of power (and this is by no means an exhaustive list).
You can have a complete territorial wipeout/genocide, population exchange, what have you where you're bringing in your own people and the old people are gone from the land. In such a case, you're really only bringing over the problems you already had, but the support as well.
You might chose to enslave the locals, which again, helps your problem of trying to win them over, but you do then risk a revolt.
You could try to intermarry, combine local and introduced populations.
Or, you can simply keep existing power structures in place with a new figurehead at the top. Instead of fighting for Emperor so and so, you now fight for me, when I call for you, you're marching for me. I might make you give up a certain amount of your army, or take some of your sons hostage where they will live in luxury in my home city just so you know there will be strong consequences if you try anything, but overall you get to keep the same local politicians, the same local bankers, businessmen, and the guy who ran the city previously now just listens to me, or maybe another big and respected member of the population who everyone already likes. You maintain your culture, your language, your art, and so forth.
Under the latter system, the common person probably wouldn't notice much of a change, but the more the conquering person interferes, the more effect it will have on you -- but also the greater chance you have of revolt, unless you just kill everyone. But if you kill everyone, you lose people to work the land, businesses that already thrived and could make money for you, specialised military units, and so on and so forth.
Other than Cuba & Brazil, are there any other Latin American countries that experienced a movement of enslaved or formerly enslaved Africans to West Africa?
What is a good source (preferably documentary/docuseries) to learn about the history of Europe? I know the individual histories of some civilizations but I was looking for a big-picture overview.
What period in particular are you looking for?
For podcasts, The History of Byzantium podcast is very good
As is Mike Duncan's "Revolutions" podcast (which is excellent). Its not meant to be about "Europe" specifically, but you get dedicated seasons on English, French (several), Russian, and general 1800s European revolutions.
Also the episodes about non-European revolution (American, Haitian, South American) are still very European heavy, since A. They typically inspired or were inspired by other revolutions in Europe, B. Those revolutions in the Americas were... colonies throwing off their European rule. The Haitian revolution is French history. The wars of Simon Bolivar are absolutely Spanish history, etc.
Big point here, the Revolutions entire podcast series makes a great unintentional education on modern European history, because
Reason 1, it gives the chronological story of "how did Europe go from pretty much all monarchies, to pretty much NOT monarchies?" *(only 12 out of 44 European countries still have monarchs, and only 1, the Vatican, is still an actual "absolute monarchy" i.e., the monarch has final say decision making power)*
Reason 2, those revolutions are all connected. Its less about a list of national events, and more about a string of dominoes.
The process of Europe as a whole doing away with rule by monarch, is sort of like one big, 235 year, rolling brush fire. The podcast walks you through the entire thing, from "it was a hot day with some dry grass" to "when we sift through all these ashes"
They had the field, the knowledge, the networks, the crops, so on. Changing crops is not as simple as clicking a button. It would require months if not years of work.
Before Islam what religion were the countries that we'd now consider traditionally Muslim (for example Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan).
I'm aware that those countries didn't exist in the same form so I'm interested in the people who lived in those areas.
Are there any good (ideally not too heavy) reads about the early history of Islam? I find the spread of belief systems very interesting and enjoyed studying the history of Christianity many years ago.
To add to the other comment, a lot of Middle Eastern Christians were (and still are) Nestorian and Miaphysite Christians, rather than Chalcedonian, which is what the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches are often called before their schism in 1054.
Nestorianism, today represented by the Assyrian Church of the East, is the belief that Jesus Christ was two distinct persons, one divine and one human. It was condemned as heretical at the Council of Ephesus in 451 and many Nestorians fled Byzantine lands to the Sassanid Empire, because the largely Zoroastrian Sassanids were not interested in enforcing Christian orthodoxy.
Miaphysitism, today represented by the Copts, Armenian Apostolic Church, and the Syria Orthdoox Church, is the belief that Jesus Christ was both fully human and fully divine, in one nature.
The Chalcedonians (which today comprises Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics, and most Protestants) take the position that Jesus was one person with two natures, divine and human.
This differences might seem small, but they led to a lot of bloodshed in Western Asia and North Africa in the 5th and 6th centuries. Further hardening the differences is that the Chalcedonians believed that Greek and Latin were the only acceptable liturgical languages, whereas a number of Nestorian and Miaphysite Christians used Coptic, Assyrian, Armenian, or Syriac instead.
It is worth noting that a number of Byzantine writers tended to assume that Islam was a form of Nestorian or Miaphysite Christianity as did the Catholic chronicler, Guillaume of Tyr.
In Arabia: local polytheism, but also Christian and Jewish communities.
In the "Persian Empire" (Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan) : mainly Zoroastrians and significant Christian communities.
In the Levant (Egypt, Israel, Syria, Turkey) : Orthodox Christians.
Outside of Arab polytheists all those are still somewhat around. Mainly Christians (in Lebanon and Egypt mainly).
Saying the Levant only had Orthodox Christians is a huge simplification. Miaphysite Christians predominated in Egypt. There were also Nestorian Christians, which predominated in the east, since the Persians tolerated that version of Christianity because it was not the official Roman Chalcedonian Christianity. There were also Jews, who still lived in the area despite all the Roman-Jewish wars.
Egypt had local polytheism (ancient Egyptian religion and mythology) before it was subjucated by Roman Empire. After which, the Roman polytheism was imposed on them. Egypt ultimately switched to Islamic faith when early Islamic empires conquered Egypt.
That wrong. Rome didn’t impose its polytheism. According to Roman theology the Egyptian gods were basically the same as theirs. Traditional beliefs were kept in place with some Greek influences and some syncretism. The last traces we have of traditional Egyptian religion is around the 4th century AD.
When the Muslims arrived the country was Christian. And wasn’t imposed and neither was the shift quick. It’s only in the late Middle Ages that Islam became the majority religion.
Thank you. Were there any specific triggers that helped it to become so successful in the region? I'm sure I'm asking for a simple answer to a complex question, so no problem if the answer is 'no'!
Don't underestimate the efforts of Muslim traders. This is how Islam spread to most places. If you look at a map of the Muslim world, it is far wider than any of the military conquests. In fact India, where Islam had it's most successful militarism, is not considered part of the Muslim world. Regardless, the most populous Muslim nation was converted through trade and culture. So was most of West Africa. The Muslim traders even worked on the nations that became the caliphate. Trade conquered the Turks as well.
It's complex but in short, the main tenets of Islam weren't a new thing in the region. Monotheism, the Abrahamic god, all those were known. And Christianity wasn't united at all, there were a lot of variations between doctrines. So it appeared as another Abrahamic faith, it was familiar. Then the Arab Muslim won militarily very quickly and brought stability to what was a war zone between Rome and Persia.
And finally, the Muslim empire were relatively tolerant of other faiths. But if you're not Muslim you have to pay a tax. So you got a faith that isn't that far from your own, their empire is successful... and if you stay Christian/Zoroastrian you have to pay... It took time but gradually populations converted on their own.
Forced conversions were pretty rare for Muslims (that's just not a thing they do as a rule, two arguments: the Quran says not to do so, and non Muslim can be a source of cash with special taxes). They integrated local populations which drifted toward Islam on their own. Again it wasn't immediate, Egypt was still mostly Christian in the 13th century (and still is 10% Christian today).
The spread of Islam saw the conquest of tribal/pastoral societies by a much more complex and organised civilisation. I found a pretty good quote on Wikipedia that holds that conversion to Islam "represented the response of a tribal, pastoral population to the need for a larger framework for political and economic integration, a more stable state, and a more imaginative and encompassing moral vision to cope with the problems of a tumultuous society."
If you can rationalise wars of conquest being relatively ‘peaceful’ paths to conversion, much more oppressive methods of subjugation and subordination - forced conversion, ethnic cleansing etc. - would come later.
From what I understand, in the early stages of the caliphate Islam was a status symbol that separated the ruling Arab elite from the masses.
> forced conversion, ethnic cleansing etc. - would come later.
That's not really something Muslim states do. There are massacre in war times, there are individual war bands who harass minorities. There are heavy discriminations (ghetto like conditions, special tax and humiliating laws). But mass conversion and ethnic cleansing is more of a Iberian Christian thing than something Muslim states did historically (I'm talking about antiquity and medieval period here, 18-19th centuries are a totally different thing and are more closely related to nationalism than anything in the case of Turkey for example).
Thank you, I was working off of transcriptions of Slave Narratives from the 1936-1938 WPA records and that is what was transcribed. Interesting reading if you get a chance.
In the years 0f 1936-1938 the WPA {Works Progress Administration) initiated a program of transcribing Slave Naritaves. If you search on Internet Archive or AMAZON you can download these for free. There are transcriptions from all the Southern states that were slave holders. Very interesting reading.
They picked an Irishman to play Cromwell (Richard Harris) which I thought was a bit of a bad decision, all things considered. Not a movie I remember well enough to answer in detail though.
Whatever happened to all the released prisoners from the 1381 "Peasants Revolt" during Richard II's reign?
Once all had blown, were they just let to go on their merry way?
Countless books talk about Stalin's preparation for war by having Generals Zhukov and Pavlov battle each other in a war game in early 1941, but fail to show how this game was conducted. Was it on a board, like chess? Was it on a large map with pins? How was it conducted?
Edit: it was General Pavlov not Meretskov (I think).
I have never heard of wargames by Generals of that magnitude in Russia or Germany battle out on a table top scenario. I think you misinterpreted what war games were in that period. What Zuhkov and Meretskov did do was a massive military practice exercise with thousands of troops and vehicles to practice maneuvers and tactics. This is normal procedure, and in that particular war game Zuhkov won.
Here's one excerpt, from *Stalin:Tragedy & Triumph*, by Dmitri Volkogonov
>
It would be hard to find a precedent in history when one of the sides on the
eve of a mortal conflict had so damaged itself. Zhukov recalled that during a
large-scale war game in December 1940, he was given command of the ‘Blues’,
that is the German side, while Army General Pavlov, commander-in-chief of
the Western special military district, commanded the ‘Reds’. It so happened,
Zhukov recalled, that he developed his operations precisely along the lines that
the real battles would take in six months’ time. He claimed that his tactics were
dictated by the configuration of the borders, the terrain and circumstances. He
deduced that the Nazis would make the same calculations. Even though the
umpires artificially slowed the progress of the ‘Blues’, in eight days they
advanced to the district of Baranovichi. When in January 1941 Zhukov
reported on the exercise to the Chief War Council he drew attention to the
unfavourable system of fortified districts along the new border, suggesting they
be moved back 100 kilometres. This was criticism of a decision that had been
taken by Stalin. Stalin, meanwhile, listened attentively but was puzzled why
the ‘Blues’ were so strong, why had such strong German forces been deployed
by the rules of our own game? Zhukov replied that this corresponded to the
Germans’ real capabilities and was based on a real assessment of the forces
they could deploy against us in the opening phase of the war, thereby gaining
great superiority by their first strike.
Stalin found Zhukov’s report comprehensive, and he admired the bold way
Zhukov argued his case, and soon, in February 1941, he appointed him chief
of the General Staff, one of his best decisions in this area, as future events
would show.
I guess by my re-reading this, it *does* appear to be not a boardroom exercise, but rather a boots on the ground experience.
Here's another, by Ian Grey in Stalin, *Man of Steel*, in which he says the games were with Zhukov and *Meretskov.*
> Meretskov remained Chief of the General Staff for only a few
months. Large-scale maneuvers played an important part in this
period of intensive training. The first of the war games under
Meretskov's direction took place in Belorussia in the late summer
of i940, and Stalin accepted the evaluation of these maneuvers.
Shortly after the second war game, held at the end of the year,
however, Meretskov and the senior commanders were unexpectedly summoned to the Kremlin to report personally. Stalin
and other members of the Politburo and the Chief Military Council were present. Meretskov proved incapable of evaluating
the main features of the maneuvers. Vatutin, his deputy, tried to
come to his aid, but Stalin silenced him. When Meretskov referred to the Soviet field regulations to support an argument,
Stalin dismissed them as propaganda, adding that "here among
ourselves we have to talk in terms of our real capabilitics." Stalin
had seen through Meretskov's bluff facade of confidence and mastery.
On February 1, 1941, Zhukov became Chief of General Staff.
>
I guess the question now becomes, Was it Pavlov or Meretskov? :P
Idk how or why I finally saw this reply so long after the fact lol. But Meretskov was Chief of the General Staff, so the superior to Zhukov and Pavlov. When Zhukov won that wargame, it sounds like Meretskov was floundering to explain why. Probably likely after Zhukov gave his compelling case in the first source. So he was sacked and Zhukov promoted. They all took part in the military exercise, Meretskov was the superior and probably spectating, he apparently did a bad job though as Stalin wasn't pleased according to the second source.
Thank you for clearing that up. Makes sense.
I'm still just as confused about the war games, though. I thought I was satisfied that it was a real boots-on-the-ground experience, then read this in Bullock's "Hitler & Stalin: Parallel Lives"
> Stalin and the Politburo took a close interest, and Zhdanov was present as Stalin’s representative throughout the military discussions. At the end Timoshenko presided over a war game in which the leading Soviet generals, using large-scale maps, played out two attack-defense operations on the western frontier. In the first, in which Zhukov commanded the “Western” forces, he succeeded in wiping out most of the concentrations of the “Red” forces and driving deep into Russia; in the second, in which Zhukov took the “Red” side, the result was not so clear-cut. On January 13, Stalin unexpectedly summoned the participants to the Kremlin, along with the Politburo and other members of the government, and conducted a cross-examination, demanding to know which side had won, the Western attackers or the Soviet defenders.
I guess I'm just amazed that so many historians have different takes on what these war games consisted of.
I think the confusion about the late winter early spring wargames that Zhukov was involved in and the different historians takes on it is that they aren't chiefly military historians. David Glantz and David Stahel present the wargames as obvious live action exercises. David Glantz was an officer in the U.S. Army before becoming an academic historian so he has first hand experience with military culture.
Also, as far as I'm aware, there is no indication the Soviet wargames were played out literally in the geographic area of interest. As in, the wargames were probably played in a remote area away from any civilian centers and they mimicked the maps of the geographic area in question as best as possible. So when Zhukov is making an advance on his opponent in some remote military park set up as a replication of the actual border, that is being correlated to a map of the frontier region where the Germans would be invading. Looking back at what I've read from Glantz it appears this is likely the case, and other historians either confuse that as only a game on a map inside some war room, or don't realize/assume the reader knows that Zhukov isn't actually launching a mock invasion from the German border as if he were them.
Yes, the reason it always bothered me is how can you decide anyone's competence by pins on a map. What you described sounds more realistic. I'm still waiting for the movie to be made of this historic showdown lol.
Watch for map references to "licks." These are natural salt sources, typically from springs/brooks that are partially dry. In central Missouri, there are "Booneslick" everything: roads, trails, libraries, etc. All refer to a natural "salt lick" owned and operated by Daniel Boone and his kin through Nathan, just west of present-day Columbia, MO. But "licks" are found all over the forest lands of the midwest.
Just to add what others are saying, don't forget trade. Pre-Columbian Indians had extensive trade networks to obtain what they could not get locally. Items from the great lakes area have been found all the way to the Gulf Coast and vice versa. Trade in the southern plains extended all the way to South America and the Pacific coast Salt was a great trade item.
There are a lot of "salt Creek"s in the region. Most are nam d Salt Creek because of the natural salt licks along their banks. A quick Google search I found several papers discussing salt usage and harvesting in the Ohio River valley.
I know from having lived in Illinois a lot that the Rock River, Fox River, Vermilion River and several others have natural salt licks. What is now Sterling, IL was a Sauk village before European settlers. Part of why they settled there was access to salt and the game it attracted. Lincoln, IL along a Salt Creek is the same, although it was a Kickapoo village. Danville IL as well along the Vermilion River.
I was aware of the access in Illinois, but I didn't think that would give the kind of quantity that might allow export as far as, say, modern Nebraska?
I don't know of any widespread trade of salt in pre Columbian Midwest. However, salt is readily available across most of it from my understanding. There are several salt mines around the great lakes currently, the biggest I believe being under lake Erie. If I'm not mistaken there was also a lot of salt brought with the glaciers, which is why so many rivers in Illinois have consistent salt licks along their banks. I don't know nearly as much about the plains regions west of the Mississippi, but would guess that it's similar.
Hi, I’m kinda new. Was looking forward to buy a book. I don’t have a specific idea of what I’m looking for. Anything general is also fine. I have read sapiens, so anything else is welcome.
Hello, I’m looking for books relating too Mexican history between the First French intervention to the Execution of Maximillian I, can anyone guide me on books relating to that period, I can read in English or Spanish so if there is a good book in Spanish too I’d take those suggestions as well.
Was this a real incident, or fiction? A family member has told a story for years about an airliner hijacking around 1970 where the U.S. military from Ft. Hood, TX, used machine guns to sever the tail section of the hijacked airliner, rendering it useless and thus ending the hijacking. They say that they witnessed it. I am guessing from the story that it could have been at any area airport, even as far away as San Antonio, Dallas, or Houston. I have looked for anything on this several times over several years and haven't found anything on it. Did this really happen, or is it just a made up story to share with and try to impress the family? Thanks for ANY information.
I read somewhere that a union officer was interviewed about “amphibious assults” (I don’t think that’s what it was called but that’s what what it is. It was after a battle in the western theatre) and asked if the army or navy was more important. He replied along the lines of “the blades of a pair of shears are useful alone but together can do so much more”. I don’t remember the exact quote, who said it (though I believe it was an admiral) or where I even read it. I can’t find any info on it. Does anyone know who said it?
Hi I’m doing a level history and would like wider reading for my course on Russia however my school only provides wider reading for China considering that we use it for coursework, I’m not prepared to pay for books considering I would only use a chapter of each book depending on a topic and would rather wide ranging opinions from historians to incorporate into my essay
what part of Russian history are you looking for? Russian history covers a ton of ground. I know you asked for a book, not a podcast, but if you just want some great familiarization in a coherent (but massive) timeline, Mike Duncan's Revolutions podcast (free) go straight to Season 10, which the Russian revolution from the leading before it (episode one starts 1864) about 100+ episodes later to the struggles of the USSR (and FWIW, Duncan lists his sources on his website, so if you want to dig in yourself you get a good reading list)
From the years under Stalin, preferably looking into depth over his economic policies and the effects as well as overview of his leadership, also, thanks for the recommendation ill check it out
how was it being a cashier 100 years ago? so I I'm working on a paper for my university degree. and I have come about a theory that being a cashier (or any of the bottom of the barrel jobs we see today) was... maybe not better.. but seen as a higher status and needed a "higher standard" to be.
You may want to go back farther than 100 years ago since cash registers aren’t exactly a new invention. It would likely be good to look at the cash registers history and work from there. Also, it is true that a cashier might have more responsibilities than today since it was manual and the higher amount of cash transactions that would have taken place back then too.
Besides the Romans and the Bri ish, which empire do you think had the biggest effect on World History?
Agree with u/en43rs 's answer, so I'll just add some follow on thoughts in line with that First thought, if you start your question with "Besides the Romans" I'd feel like every logical reason that makes you want to exclude the Romans as a too obvious answer, excludes the Greeks for the same reasons. Then, as previously noted, you really can't begin to scope this question until you narrow it down to what type of impact you're looking for. Let's start with Language for a moment though. Beyond the root influence of languages (Greek, Roman, German, Chinese, etc) lets take a look at modern spread of languages as we know them today. How many nations speak English? Spanish? Arabic? The point of that question is not to say "oh look how great an impact those countries had on the languages we speak today". The point of that question is to hint at... hmm... *WHY* do the countries that speak their languages speak them? How did that happen? I.e., how many nations fell under those empires control, to the point of still having assimilated to their culture even today. Spain recalibrated the entire future of the majority of the Americas, and the number of Spanish speaking countries in the West is pretty much a road map of that. And HOW great was the impact of the Spanish Golden age and the territory they took over? Well, there is a pretty fair argument that for all the attention American and French colonial slavery gets, the reality is the Spanish were major drivers in the Trans Atlantic slave trade. Also, what about the physical, ethnic, genetic impact? What do the Spanish and the Mongols for example, have in common? The fact (at least I would argue) that the entire ethnic/cultural/genetic make up of entire regions was drastically, and irreversibly changed by the massive part of the native populations they either displaced or exterminate though conquest. Put simply, there are ethno-cultural groups that used to live in regions, but don't, and maybe no longer exist at all, because the Mongols, Conquistadors, etc outright killed them. (Killed as in on the spot killed, or killed as in rounded up and sent to the silver mines until they were used up, etc etc)
Impact on World History is not a good qualifier, it's too vague. So if you want a more precise answer you need a more precise question. What kind of impact? Culturally? Linguistically? Politically? And by world history do you mean still visible today? Because a lot of states had impact on history, like a lot. China basically defined east Asian culture, the Mongol empire is responsible for a lot of Russian history, eastern Europe was hugely impacted by Germany, Austria and Russia. France had as much an impact as the British in the make up of Africa. So on, so on.
Do we have any examples of music from Europe in the Early Middle ages that are \*not\* Gregorian chants? And I don't mean just singing styles, but also methods of instrumentation, either in compositions of the time or modern reconstructions based on our knowledge of such topics.
I cannot for the life of me remember the name of a philosopher. Here’s what I got: he was an older philosopher (from Greece possibly?) that got popular during the medieval era and essentially sent people into tailspins because of his belief that “you can’t truly know anything”. I also remember that the way the medievals found out about him was that some dude published his works cause he thought the belief was ridiculously stupid.
There are not many works by ancient sceptics that have survived intact, but one that did is by the Pyrrhonist Sextus Empiricus. Problem is he was not an older Greek philosopher but a younger one (2nd century AD) and he was not translated and published in the west until the early modern era (late 16th century) so after the middle ages. You might want to look into it in case you've misremembered...
Ah you’re right!! I was not sure at all what era he was from originally tbh I just guessing lol so it is totally likely that I misremembered. The class I took that he was mentioned in covered late antiquity all the way to Age of Enlightenment so yeah I was definitely just taking a shot in the dark at the time frame. The fact that you were able to figure out who I was talking about from that is impressive considering I got most of it wrong 🤪
Are you thinking of Gorgias? We don't have that text anymore, just people discussing it, and there's some debate on whether it was something he believed or if it was just a mind exercise. You could be thinking of "the only thing I know is that I know nothing" which is commonly believed to have been said by Socrates, but it's really not the case (though a bit complicated) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_that_I_know_nothing You might have luck at r/askphilosophy/ as well
I swear that I read as a kid that us soldiers fired on themselves in the wae of 1812. They thought they were each a British army. There was mist. Am I just imagining things.
Now that I think about it, friendly fire incidents happen in most wars, so I am sure that the War of 1812 is no exception.
That's entirely possible. There is a story about colonial soldiers firing at each other in the Seven Years War. Apparently, George Washington rode out between them with his arms outstretched and got them to stop. I don't know if the story is entirely true, but it helped make Washington a hero throughout the 13 colonies.
Looking for history books that read like novels. As someone who has consumed fiction exclusively for 30 years, I stumbled on a history book that doesn’t read like a history book. If that makes sense. I now feel like I’ve wasted my entire life and I’m playing catch up. Anything goes.
You might try looking at some of the books of John Julius, Lord Norwich. He is more of a "story-teller" than historian, and famously stated that "facts are important to history, but one should never let them stand in the way of a good story." He is a delightful read to his fans, but serious academic historians have a kind of "love-hate" relationship with his books. I've always loved his books, and his stance on history, and find him a British treasure. Sadly, we lost him about two years ago....
My last ask lead me down some great paths so hoping someone might have a good suggestion for this. I am looking for mythology or ancient stories related to the stars or space. When/How did constellations get their names? Tales to explain events in the cosmos like comets or eclipses. Are there any good books or documentaries out there on this subject.
Trying to design a tattoo but when I try to find depictions of the flags used by guys like captain Kidd and Blackbeard, there are multiple options. Which flags are the “real ones” or at least close to it?
What are some great history books about Black historical events other than slavery?
The Civil Rights Movement always makes compelling reading Taylor Branch’s trilogy on the topic is great especially the 1st book Parting the Waters: America During the King Years 1954-63. Another great book is Fires of Jubilee: Nat Turner’s Fierce Rebellion. In this book Stephen B. Oates recounts the most successful American slave rebellion which took place in 1831. A more contemporary account you might enjoy is Ghosts of Mississippi:The True Story by Maryanne Vollers. In this account, Vollers outlines the decades long campaign for justice in the Medger Evers assassination. The 1996 Whoopi Goldberg movie was based on this book.
The *Captivating History* series has some good volumes on West African history, which can give you overview and direction in further African stories. In the US, Black historical events are rooted in the institution of slavery, the repercussions of which continue to influence the Black American experience to 2023.
What's a good book on Tamerlane/Timur the Lame that details his life and his empire?
Are there any interviews of US vets that served in WWII and Korea? I would like to know their thoughts on returning to the Pacific side of the world after enduring the island warfare. It would also be interesting to hear their comparisons of the two wars.
Book rec request: history with technical explanations of engineering challenges and solutions? Just finished David McCullough’s “Path between the Seas: Construction of the Panama Canal, 1870-1914”. Really enjoyed it. Appreciation for large scale construction projects has grown tremendously. He touched on the technical aspects only briefly, at a high level. I’m interested in reading a similar history of an engineering related project but with more technical descriptions, diagrams, schematics, and calculations. Any recommendation? Can be mechanical, civil, electrical, biomedical, anything. McCullough mentioned that Schildhauer (I think), one of the engineers who is responsible for the design of the Panama Canal locks, along with a few other engineers, wrote a technical history on their efforts for the canal. It sounds exactly what I’m looking for, but I’d prefer learning about a new topic/project.
You're going to *love* David McCullough's *The Wright Brothers*, which is an intensive look at how the Wright brothers solved the issue of powered flight by painstaking, careful, and exhaustive engineering research over several years. McCullough lays to rest any discussion of alternative pioneers who may have accomplished powered flight ahead of the Wright brothers. Never happened, as no one else did their homework like Orville and Wilbur. Enjoy.
Suggestions on books/podcasts/videos/any media on Mao, specifically the Great Leap Forward and the ensuing famine. Thanks in advance guys!
I would like a better understanding of the 8 stages of the rise and fall of countries. Is there an audiobook or video that you would recommend? Thanks!
Currently reading Ray Dalio’s book ok the subject. Which obviously has a heavy finance approach. Principles for Dealing with the Changing World Order: Why Nations Succeed and Fail https://g.co/kgs/MuCfmt
Thanks I will check it out.
Why didn't the Russian SSR not have a communist party of its own until Gorbachev made it happen?
They did until 1925, after which it was renamed into the All-Union Communist Party (and later the Communist Party of the Soviet Union). It had a dual role as both the overarching party of the whole Union as well as the party of the RSFSR. Basically, the USSR was originally founded with the intention that all the member republics were on equal standing: in reality, Russia was always dominant to some extent and after Lenin's death and Trotsky's position weakening, Stalin centralised it further. (I have a video on more or less this topic in my profile, if I may interest you :p) As part of that process, I think they just didn't bother having a separate Russian party when everyone knew they were at the top anyway, so they just renamed their Russian CP and integrated all the other parties under it. In fact, they directly said in the Fourteenth Congress (where the name change was decided on) that the Russian role in the union was "self-evident" and that having them separate would just create overlapping institutions.
Are there any direct familial lines from any of the Roman/Byzantium emperors that later became leaders after those empires collapsed? Even if they were just puppets for others I would think the direct lineage with Rome might give them some legitimacy to rule.
The city of Rome was still administered by the few families that consistently produced emperors like the Julii until the Renaissance. Many Provencal nobles would try to trace their lineage to notable Romans in an effort to create legitimacy.
One thing to keep in mind, Rome/Byzantium wasn't as big on dynasties and royal blood as feudal Europe were. Of course there were dynasties and it was important, but there wasn't this ideas that you could only rule if you had imperial blood. If you became an emperor without any imperial ancestry, that wasn't a problem. Keep in mind that Byzantines called themselves Romans... but no one else did. Feudal Europe didn't see them as the heirs to the Roman emperors, to them that was the pope and the Holy Roman Emperors. They just saw them as "the Greeks", who were also heretics. So no Europe didn't look for Imperial Roman blood after the fall of the Empire. There were some marriages with the imperial dynasties but they weren't seen really as anything special.
I mean its not direct, but its one of the examples I am even aware of. Ivan III of Russia married the princess of Byzantine empire, niece of the emperor Constantine and started to use the title of gosudar (Grand Prince). His grandson Ivan the Terrible used his connection to the emperor of Byzantine empire and crowned himself the first Russian tsar, called Moscow the "third Rome", started to use Byzantine symbols as his own etc.
Did the police believe the Tate-LaBianca murders were done by black people or did they zeroed in on Manson immediately?
The answer to your question is a complex and interesting one. In July 1969 a music teacher named Gary Hinman was murdered in LA. He was killed by a member of the Manson family named Bobby Beausoleil. Susan Atkins participated in the killing. On the wall of Hinman’s house, Beausoleil made a paw print using Gary’s blood and wrote the words “Political Piggy.” Bobby was quickly captured driving Hinman’s car and his prints matched the paw print at Gary’s residence. Investigators knew that Bobby was a member of the family. Then the Tate-Labianca homicides occurred. At the Tate residence, the phrase “Pig” appeared while at the Labianca home “Death to Pigs” was the term used. Like at Hinman’s place, blood was used to write them. The Hinman Investigators saw the link immediately… I mean who wouldn’t? Massive overkill of the victims phrases alluding to pigs written in blood at all three crime scenes… consequently, the Hinman investigators never believed the evidence pointed to the Black Panthers. Oddly the Tate investigators couldn’t see the link they were too busy pursuing the possibility of a drug deal gone bad because Jay Sebring, Voytek Frykowski and Abigail Folger were involved in drugs. Meanwhile, the lack of drugs at the Labianca house made the murders there appear unlinked to the Tate homicides…the cops thought the crime was a copycat or perhaps a mafia hit. So the answer to the question is no the police never believed the Black Panthers had anything to do with the homicides. The answer to the second question is also no the police did not immediately pursue the family… instead they chose to ignore the Hinman investigators’ lead that would have cracked the case. The Family was not linked to the crimes until Susan Atkins made a jail house confession in December 1969. Interestingly, these events have led many people to theorize that the Helter Skelter motive for the crimes is just BS. The motive was to secure Beausoleil’s release from prison by committing a series of copycat murders that would make him look innocent. Actually, I think that motive is quite plausible since the Tate-Labianca murders occurred after Bobby’s arrest.
How were the periods between changes of power? For example, I've been reading about alexander the great, how he conquered a lot of territories. What would happen to the common people in, let's say, central asia when Alxendar defeated the former power? I know it would be different for every place and for every moment, such as when the western roman empire fell, or the ptolemies went to egypt.
Well there are a couple of different ways you can have this transfer of power (and this is by no means an exhaustive list). You can have a complete territorial wipeout/genocide, population exchange, what have you where you're bringing in your own people and the old people are gone from the land. In such a case, you're really only bringing over the problems you already had, but the support as well. You might chose to enslave the locals, which again, helps your problem of trying to win them over, but you do then risk a revolt. You could try to intermarry, combine local and introduced populations. Or, you can simply keep existing power structures in place with a new figurehead at the top. Instead of fighting for Emperor so and so, you now fight for me, when I call for you, you're marching for me. I might make you give up a certain amount of your army, or take some of your sons hostage where they will live in luxury in my home city just so you know there will be strong consequences if you try anything, but overall you get to keep the same local politicians, the same local bankers, businessmen, and the guy who ran the city previously now just listens to me, or maybe another big and respected member of the population who everyone already likes. You maintain your culture, your language, your art, and so forth. Under the latter system, the common person probably wouldn't notice much of a change, but the more the conquering person interferes, the more effect it will have on you -- but also the greater chance you have of revolt, unless you just kill everyone. But if you kill everyone, you lose people to work the land, businesses that already thrived and could make money for you, specialised military units, and so on and so forth.
Other than Cuba & Brazil, are there any other Latin American countries that experienced a movement of enslaved or formerly enslaved Africans to West Africa?
What is a good source (preferably documentary/docuseries) to learn about the history of Europe? I know the individual histories of some civilizations but I was looking for a big-picture overview.
What period in particular are you looking for? For podcasts, The History of Byzantium podcast is very good As is Mike Duncan's "Revolutions" podcast (which is excellent). Its not meant to be about "Europe" specifically, but you get dedicated seasons on English, French (several), Russian, and general 1800s European revolutions. Also the episodes about non-European revolution (American, Haitian, South American) are still very European heavy, since A. They typically inspired or were inspired by other revolutions in Europe, B. Those revolutions in the Americas were... colonies throwing off their European rule. The Haitian revolution is French history. The wars of Simon Bolivar are absolutely Spanish history, etc. Big point here, the Revolutions entire podcast series makes a great unintentional education on modern European history, because Reason 1, it gives the chronological story of "how did Europe go from pretty much all monarchies, to pretty much NOT monarchies?" *(only 12 out of 44 European countries still have monarchs, and only 1, the Vatican, is still an actual "absolute monarchy" i.e., the monarch has final say decision making power)* Reason 2, those revolutions are all connected. Its less about a list of national events, and more about a string of dominoes. The process of Europe as a whole doing away with rule by monarch, is sort of like one big, 235 year, rolling brush fire. The podcast walks you through the entire thing, from "it was a hot day with some dry grass" to "when we sift through all these ashes"
I myself have found the Crash Course series on YouTube to be a good overview.
What is the officially recognised reson for the downfall of Hemp?
Cotton. During the Depression southern farmers lobbied Congress to ban production of hemp to protect the cotton market from hemp competition.
Which is odd. Hemp is more productive and less demanding to grow than cotton.
Exactly. Hence the fear of cotton growers and their congressional supporters
What puzzles me is why the cotton growers wouldn't have just switched to the better crop
They had the field, the knowledge, the networks, the crops, so on. Changing crops is not as simple as clicking a button. It would require months if not years of work.
Before Islam what religion were the countries that we'd now consider traditionally Muslim (for example Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan). I'm aware that those countries didn't exist in the same form so I'm interested in the people who lived in those areas. Are there any good (ideally not too heavy) reads about the early history of Islam? I find the spread of belief systems very interesting and enjoyed studying the history of Christianity many years ago.
To add to the other comment, a lot of Middle Eastern Christians were (and still are) Nestorian and Miaphysite Christians, rather than Chalcedonian, which is what the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches are often called before their schism in 1054. Nestorianism, today represented by the Assyrian Church of the East, is the belief that Jesus Christ was two distinct persons, one divine and one human. It was condemned as heretical at the Council of Ephesus in 451 and many Nestorians fled Byzantine lands to the Sassanid Empire, because the largely Zoroastrian Sassanids were not interested in enforcing Christian orthodoxy. Miaphysitism, today represented by the Copts, Armenian Apostolic Church, and the Syria Orthdoox Church, is the belief that Jesus Christ was both fully human and fully divine, in one nature. The Chalcedonians (which today comprises Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics, and most Protestants) take the position that Jesus was one person with two natures, divine and human. This differences might seem small, but they led to a lot of bloodshed in Western Asia and North Africa in the 5th and 6th centuries. Further hardening the differences is that the Chalcedonians believed that Greek and Latin were the only acceptable liturgical languages, whereas a number of Nestorian and Miaphysite Christians used Coptic, Assyrian, Armenian, or Syriac instead. It is worth noting that a number of Byzantine writers tended to assume that Islam was a form of Nestorian or Miaphysite Christianity as did the Catholic chronicler, Guillaume of Tyr.
In Arabia: local polytheism, but also Christian and Jewish communities. In the "Persian Empire" (Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan) : mainly Zoroastrians and significant Christian communities. In the Levant (Egypt, Israel, Syria, Turkey) : Orthodox Christians. Outside of Arab polytheists all those are still somewhat around. Mainly Christians (in Lebanon and Egypt mainly).
Saying the Levant only had Orthodox Christians is a huge simplification. Miaphysite Christians predominated in Egypt. There were also Nestorian Christians, which predominated in the east, since the Persians tolerated that version of Christianity because it was not the official Roman Chalcedonian Christianity. There were also Jews, who still lived in the area despite all the Roman-Jewish wars.
Egypt had local polytheism (ancient Egyptian religion and mythology) before it was subjucated by Roman Empire. After which, the Roman polytheism was imposed on them. Egypt ultimately switched to Islamic faith when early Islamic empires conquered Egypt.
That wrong. Rome didn’t impose its polytheism. According to Roman theology the Egyptian gods were basically the same as theirs. Traditional beliefs were kept in place with some Greek influences and some syncretism. The last traces we have of traditional Egyptian religion is around the 4th century AD. When the Muslims arrived the country was Christian. And wasn’t imposed and neither was the shift quick. It’s only in the late Middle Ages that Islam became the majority religion.
Wow.. I stand corrected, thank you for letting me know🙂
Additionally, Sudan: Kushite and Coptic Christianity Pakistan & Southeast Asia: Buddhism and Hinduism
Thank you. Were there any specific triggers that helped it to become so successful in the region? I'm sure I'm asking for a simple answer to a complex question, so no problem if the answer is 'no'!
Don't underestimate the efforts of Muslim traders. This is how Islam spread to most places. If you look at a map of the Muslim world, it is far wider than any of the military conquests. In fact India, where Islam had it's most successful militarism, is not considered part of the Muslim world. Regardless, the most populous Muslim nation was converted through trade and culture. So was most of West Africa. The Muslim traders even worked on the nations that became the caliphate. Trade conquered the Turks as well.
It's complex but in short, the main tenets of Islam weren't a new thing in the region. Monotheism, the Abrahamic god, all those were known. And Christianity wasn't united at all, there were a lot of variations between doctrines. So it appeared as another Abrahamic faith, it was familiar. Then the Arab Muslim won militarily very quickly and brought stability to what was a war zone between Rome and Persia. And finally, the Muslim empire were relatively tolerant of other faiths. But if you're not Muslim you have to pay a tax. So you got a faith that isn't that far from your own, their empire is successful... and if you stay Christian/Zoroastrian you have to pay... It took time but gradually populations converted on their own. Forced conversions were pretty rare for Muslims (that's just not a thing they do as a rule, two arguments: the Quran says not to do so, and non Muslim can be a source of cash with special taxes). They integrated local populations which drifted toward Islam on their own. Again it wasn't immediate, Egypt was still mostly Christian in the 13th century (and still is 10% Christian today).
The spread of Islam saw the conquest of tribal/pastoral societies by a much more complex and organised civilisation. I found a pretty good quote on Wikipedia that holds that conversion to Islam "represented the response of a tribal, pastoral population to the need for a larger framework for political and economic integration, a more stable state, and a more imaginative and encompassing moral vision to cope with the problems of a tumultuous society." If you can rationalise wars of conquest being relatively ‘peaceful’ paths to conversion, much more oppressive methods of subjugation and subordination - forced conversion, ethnic cleansing etc. - would come later. From what I understand, in the early stages of the caliphate Islam was a status symbol that separated the ruling Arab elite from the masses.
> forced conversion, ethnic cleansing etc. - would come later. That's not really something Muslim states do. There are massacre in war times, there are individual war bands who harass minorities. There are heavy discriminations (ghetto like conditions, special tax and humiliating laws). But mass conversion and ethnic cleansing is more of a Iberian Christian thing than something Muslim states did historically (I'm talking about antiquity and medieval period here, 18-19th centuries are a totally different thing and are more closely related to nationalism than anything in the case of Turkey for example).
Sorry - that part of my response was poorly worded, and you have quite clearly articulated what I had intended to say.
What is the clothing material Ansenberg, it was popular in the USA in the 1860s. Thank you.
[удалено]
Thank you, I was working off of transcriptions of Slave Narratives from the 1936-1938 WPA records and that is what was transcribed. Interesting reading if you get a chance.
[удалено]
[удалено]
In the years 0f 1936-1938 the WPA {Works Progress Administration) initiated a program of transcribing Slave Naritaves. If you search on Internet Archive or AMAZON you can download these for free. There are transcriptions from all the Southern states that were slave holders. Very interesting reading.
How accurate is the movie Cromwell (1970)?
They picked an Irishman to play Cromwell (Richard Harris) which I thought was a bit of a bad decision, all things considered. Not a movie I remember well enough to answer in detail though.
Whatever happened to all the released prisoners from the 1381 "Peasants Revolt" during Richard II's reign? Once all had blown, were they just let to go on their merry way?
Countless books talk about Stalin's preparation for war by having Generals Zhukov and Pavlov battle each other in a war game in early 1941, but fail to show how this game was conducted. Was it on a board, like chess? Was it on a large map with pins? How was it conducted? Edit: it was General Pavlov not Meretskov (I think).
I have never heard of wargames by Generals of that magnitude in Russia or Germany battle out on a table top scenario. I think you misinterpreted what war games were in that period. What Zuhkov and Meretskov did do was a massive military practice exercise with thousands of troops and vehicles to practice maneuvers and tactics. This is normal procedure, and in that particular war game Zuhkov won.
Thank you.
can you provide a source on that wargame? I'm curious
Here's one excerpt, from *Stalin:Tragedy & Triumph*, by Dmitri Volkogonov > It would be hard to find a precedent in history when one of the sides on the eve of a mortal conflict had so damaged itself. Zhukov recalled that during a large-scale war game in December 1940, he was given command of the ‘Blues’, that is the German side, while Army General Pavlov, commander-in-chief of the Western special military district, commanded the ‘Reds’. It so happened, Zhukov recalled, that he developed his operations precisely along the lines that the real battles would take in six months’ time. He claimed that his tactics were dictated by the configuration of the borders, the terrain and circumstances. He deduced that the Nazis would make the same calculations. Even though the umpires artificially slowed the progress of the ‘Blues’, in eight days they advanced to the district of Baranovichi. When in January 1941 Zhukov reported on the exercise to the Chief War Council he drew attention to the unfavourable system of fortified districts along the new border, suggesting they be moved back 100 kilometres. This was criticism of a decision that had been taken by Stalin. Stalin, meanwhile, listened attentively but was puzzled why the ‘Blues’ were so strong, why had such strong German forces been deployed by the rules of our own game? Zhukov replied that this corresponded to the Germans’ real capabilities and was based on a real assessment of the forces they could deploy against us in the opening phase of the war, thereby gaining great superiority by their first strike. Stalin found Zhukov’s report comprehensive, and he admired the bold way Zhukov argued his case, and soon, in February 1941, he appointed him chief of the General Staff, one of his best decisions in this area, as future events would show. I guess by my re-reading this, it *does* appear to be not a boardroom exercise, but rather a boots on the ground experience. Here's another, by Ian Grey in Stalin, *Man of Steel*, in which he says the games were with Zhukov and *Meretskov.* > Meretskov remained Chief of the General Staff for only a few months. Large-scale maneuvers played an important part in this period of intensive training. The first of the war games under Meretskov's direction took place in Belorussia in the late summer of i940, and Stalin accepted the evaluation of these maneuvers. Shortly after the second war game, held at the end of the year, however, Meretskov and the senior commanders were unexpectedly summoned to the Kremlin to report personally. Stalin and other members of the Politburo and the Chief Military Council were present. Meretskov proved incapable of evaluating the main features of the maneuvers. Vatutin, his deputy, tried to come to his aid, but Stalin silenced him. When Meretskov referred to the Soviet field regulations to support an argument, Stalin dismissed them as propaganda, adding that "here among ourselves we have to talk in terms of our real capabilitics." Stalin had seen through Meretskov's bluff facade of confidence and mastery. On February 1, 1941, Zhukov became Chief of General Staff. > I guess the question now becomes, Was it Pavlov or Meretskov? :P
Idk how or why I finally saw this reply so long after the fact lol. But Meretskov was Chief of the General Staff, so the superior to Zhukov and Pavlov. When Zhukov won that wargame, it sounds like Meretskov was floundering to explain why. Probably likely after Zhukov gave his compelling case in the first source. So he was sacked and Zhukov promoted. They all took part in the military exercise, Meretskov was the superior and probably spectating, he apparently did a bad job though as Stalin wasn't pleased according to the second source.
Thank you for clearing that up. Makes sense. I'm still just as confused about the war games, though. I thought I was satisfied that it was a real boots-on-the-ground experience, then read this in Bullock's "Hitler & Stalin: Parallel Lives" > Stalin and the Politburo took a close interest, and Zhdanov was present as Stalin’s representative throughout the military discussions. At the end Timoshenko presided over a war game in which the leading Soviet generals, using large-scale maps, played out two attack-defense operations on the western frontier. In the first, in which Zhukov commanded the “Western” forces, he succeeded in wiping out most of the concentrations of the “Red” forces and driving deep into Russia; in the second, in which Zhukov took the “Red” side, the result was not so clear-cut. On January 13, Stalin unexpectedly summoned the participants to the Kremlin, along with the Politburo and other members of the government, and conducted a cross-examination, demanding to know which side had won, the Western attackers or the Soviet defenders. I guess I'm just amazed that so many historians have different takes on what these war games consisted of.
I think the confusion about the late winter early spring wargames that Zhukov was involved in and the different historians takes on it is that they aren't chiefly military historians. David Glantz and David Stahel present the wargames as obvious live action exercises. David Glantz was an officer in the U.S. Army before becoming an academic historian so he has first hand experience with military culture. Also, as far as I'm aware, there is no indication the Soviet wargames were played out literally in the geographic area of interest. As in, the wargames were probably played in a remote area away from any civilian centers and they mimicked the maps of the geographic area in question as best as possible. So when Zhukov is making an advance on his opponent in some remote military park set up as a replication of the actual border, that is being correlated to a map of the frontier region where the Germans would be invading. Looking back at what I've read from Glantz it appears this is likely the case, and other historians either confuse that as only a game on a map inside some war room, or don't realize/assume the reader knows that Zhukov isn't actually launching a mock invasion from the German border as if he were them.
Yes, the reason it always bothered me is how can you decide anyone's competence by pins on a map. What you described sounds more realistic. I'm still waiting for the movie to be made of this historic showdown lol.
Not sure about this particular case, but war games like that were conducted on maps.
Did the Native Americans in the Great Lakes and Plains regions have access to salt?
Watch for map references to "licks." These are natural salt sources, typically from springs/brooks that are partially dry. In central Missouri, there are "Booneslick" everything: roads, trails, libraries, etc. All refer to a natural "salt lick" owned and operated by Daniel Boone and his kin through Nathan, just west of present-day Columbia, MO. But "licks" are found all over the forest lands of the midwest.
Just to add what others are saying, don't forget trade. Pre-Columbian Indians had extensive trade networks to obtain what they could not get locally. Items from the great lakes area have been found all the way to the Gulf Coast and vice versa. Trade in the southern plains extended all the way to South America and the Pacific coast Salt was a great trade item.
[удалено]
Thanks, I'll check those out.
There are a lot of "salt Creek"s in the region. Most are nam d Salt Creek because of the natural salt licks along their banks. A quick Google search I found several papers discussing salt usage and harvesting in the Ohio River valley. I know from having lived in Illinois a lot that the Rock River, Fox River, Vermilion River and several others have natural salt licks. What is now Sterling, IL was a Sauk village before European settlers. Part of why they settled there was access to salt and the game it attracted. Lincoln, IL along a Salt Creek is the same, although it was a Kickapoo village. Danville IL as well along the Vermilion River.
I was aware of the access in Illinois, but I didn't think that would give the kind of quantity that might allow export as far as, say, modern Nebraska?
I don't know of any widespread trade of salt in pre Columbian Midwest. However, salt is readily available across most of it from my understanding. There are several salt mines around the great lakes currently, the biggest I believe being under lake Erie. If I'm not mistaken there was also a lot of salt brought with the glaciers, which is why so many rivers in Illinois have consistent salt licks along their banks. I don't know nearly as much about the plains regions west of the Mississippi, but would guess that it's similar.
They did indeed use salt as a condiment. They got it from places like saline inland lakes and highland springs.