Before Ted Kaczynski was investigated and found, he stamped his bombs with the initials FC and portrayed himself as a terrorist group named Freedom Club that was working with numbers. Given his attacks were so coordinated, his methods and his works so intelligent, and they spent so many years failing to lock down an individual suspect, it still seems documented that from the start, the FBI were looking for just one person. Why is that?

I am currently reading through the book "Oedipus Rex" by Sophocles, when I read through this line stated by Oedipus. "I shall leave nothing undone. With God's help we shall prove fortunate- or fall." Now the word that catches my eye is "God's" it is the only time so far it is singular or capitalized, so it obviously referring to the Judeo-Christain God, but my question is why is it there?

I'd imagine it was put in through efforts by the church to alter pagan works, but why only that verse? He was swearing on it, so at first I thought they took it out because of blasphemous reasons, but then why not the rest of it? A few pages later he is praying and worshipping half the Parthenon. So anyone know why it's there? Or maybe an alternate God, not the Christian one but maybe the unknown God or something along those lines.

In the fall of 1983, there were a number of incidents that "documentaries" like to say ratcheted up the tension between the Soviets and NATO. But these documentaries often suggest that the Korean Airlines incident, the Grenada invasion, the Able Archer exercise, the Stanislav Petrov incident happened in overlapping timeframes, but in reality none of these events were simultaneous.

How dangerous was the threat?

Hi historians of Reddit!

I've been looking around for a biography of Atatürk and it's been pretty difficult to find one with minimal to no bias. He either has supporters that create a hagiography or opponents that absolutely hate him and paint a picture of him as a monster. I don't mind some commentary but I'm more interested in facts and information about him as a leader and as a person. Do you have any suggestions?

Thanks!

Correct if I am wrong here but since arrows became quite common in the military, it required the adequate training and body conditioning to be able to use it effectively.

Not only that but you could have multiple archers firing volleys of arrows from a distance while early firearms required a shorter distance and were less accurate and required more time to reload, let alone not being able to use the weapon if it was wet when compared to the bow and arrow.

​

So what was the reason of why many militaries slowly replaced the bow and arrow with firearms even though early firearms were not as effective as the reliable bow and arrow?

​

BONUS QUESTION - How did the bow and arrow slowly become replaced with the crossbow before firearms came into the scene?

I was watching a youtube video about food and drinks from ancient Roman times and they began explaining how the lower class Roman's that couldnt afford wine drank a drink called posca, and that it was a mixture of water, vinegar, and (probably) herbs. I don't see how water and vinegar could somehow become inebriating and how this could possibly be a substitute for wine. But apparently it was THE drink of Roman soldiers. I don't get it.

I've seen characters using scythe as weapon in games and anime so i got interested, besides used by farmers and such, was it actually considered consistent for actual wars or combat? And if not, is there any weapon you guys know that can resemble or have connection to it's design?

I understand the general area at the time was probably mostly devoid of scholars and other such record keepers, but it's interesting to me that this sole book seems to be the main source of information for this otherwise unknown period in time. It almost seems like if not for this work, there would be no other primary sources from this period.

Was there just no other historians or writers that were available for recording the information down, or was "Charles Johnson" just the first and therefore no one else was interested?

Given from what I know about the USSR, I just don't see how it's on the same level of the USA even at its peak. When I think of a "superpower", I typically think of a country with an enormous ability to project power anywhere around the globe, but the USSR just doesn't seem to have it. Whereas the US was deploying hundreds of thousands of troops overseas into Vietnam with multiple Carrier Battle Groups deployed around the world at once, what exactly could the USSR do? The only main threat it ever seemed to pose to the US was through its nuclear arsenal, but if that made it a superpower then every nuclear-armed country would be one. While it had an immense conventional military, the Soviet army was really only a threat to US allies in Europe (i.e. an actual invasion of the US was out of the question), and I don't know if the Soviet navy or air force had the capability or doctrine to blockade or bomb the US.

Is force projection the main factor in being a superpower? As an example of my thinking, the Falklands War was on the bleeding edge of what the United Kingdom (non superpower) could do in the 80s, with the Vulcan bomber raid against Ascention island being the longest-range bombing run at the time. On the other hand, the US (clear superpower) does multiple similar deployments at the same time as a normal state of operations, not as a heightened state of open warfare with another country.

So I was wondering, since nowadays soldiers tend to be fit, perhaps not have 6 packs, but usually visible abs since they do a lot of workouts and exercises to stay in shape, for example, the Battle of Grunwald let's say, were the knights in that battle(Teutonic Order vs the Polish) fit, or were they overweight, or did it matter? Did they have any stamina and do any type of training before fighting? How did that "basic training" look like?

I've tried finding some books about Leo Major online, but only one pops up and it's in French...which I don't speak.

I was wondering if anyone knows of a translated version, or any other books about him.

It seems like the people in the ancient world just believed that the gods lived high up in the sky, in the heavens. But obviously these days most religious people don't believe that. When and how did that transition take place?

From what I understand, the Latin word caelum and the Greek word οὐρᾰνός and the Hebrew word שָׁמַיִם all have the same ambiguity as the English word heaven. The vaulted sky and the home of the gods/God. If people didn't believe that the gods lived in the sky, why are the words the same?

However, even if they acquired some land, they never truly stopped raiding and pillaging. Not all of the Danes are depicted as such, though, and we don't regularly see the women or their settlements, but mostly the men on their war. I was thinking, because of how prevalent it is in the show, of how Danes (the warriors) want to die with their sword in their hand to enter Valhalla, and it struck me that perhaps this was influencing their every action - as not doing that, it meant that they would be able to only roam Niflheim.

For example, if the Queen of England and the King of Spain were to both marry how would the two roles be balanced. Would one monarch be expected to move their court to the other nation or would there be an example of couples spending huge amounts of time apart each tending to their own national affairs?

I'm by no means a historian, but from what I know about 18th and 19th century cities they don't seem like a particularly nice place to live in. Especially for poor people. 16 hours work days, pollution, high population density and problems with disease. And yet urban population during that period exploded. Swaths of people were abandoning their farming lifestyle and migrating into the cities.

What was motivating these people to migrate? Was the pay from factory work that much higher than from farming? Did the cities offer more freedom than countryside? Or was farm work so bad that even factory work seemed like an improvement?

.

I have an old copy of Robinson Crusoe and A Journal of the Plague Year, published by the Book League of America. On what I would expect to be the copyright page in a modern edition, there is only the abbreviation "CL", followed by "printed in the United States of America."

That's basically the extent of the publishing information. Defoe is on the spine, but not the title page; that just has the title as I gave it and the publisher as "The Book League of America, New York."

The two things I've found on the internet is a suggestion that the CL indicates which printing it is (but this book league really produced 150 printings of this book?) and a Harper and Brothers two letter code to indicate month and year of publication. I don't really like that one either.

Is anyone around here familiar with that particular note, CL?

With the unique seasons and long periods of darkness in the Winter and long periods of daylight in the Summer how did the Inuit and other Native Americans of the Arctic keep track of time? A solar calendar might not be effective in Summer given that the Sun never sets and a lunar calendar wouldn't be effective either given that during the Summer the moon might not be visible. How did they know when to sleep in the Summer and when to wake up in the Winter?

As silly as it sounds, I heard about this concept from Meme Historian's video on the WHO ARE YOU I AM FROM ANCIENT GREECE meme. MH quoted from "The Decline of the West" and talked about how Herodotus stated that nothing noteworthy had happened before his time, and how the Ancient Greeks seemingly had no concept or understanding of the idea of inner motives. I seem to have the notion now that Oswald Spengler claimed that the Ancient Greeks didn't really have any self-awareness or introspection. I could be completely wrong, but while I wait for my copy to TDotW, I would like some elucidation on this matter.