What was the naming traditions like in Canaan/levant and how has it evolved. I’m specifically interested in what the names were like prior to the rise of the Abraham’s religions in modern day Palestine/Israel.

There seem to be a few competing theories on Cahokia's collapse, so I was wondering what the most likely reason was.

On a related note, I'm also curious as to how the region went from Mississippian cities like Cahokia to being viewed by Europeans as 'savage'. The generalised perception of Native Americans is as in tune with nature and not a settled urban society. Is this because there weren't really towns after the Mississippian collapse or is it just a matter of assumptions about Terra Nullius from the settlers and explorers?

As a stretch question, did they have any idea of liquidity?

I’ve often heard this anecdote before but have seen no mention of wether or not the peace established was know to Jackson during or before the battle.

Austria took part in the First and Third Partitions of Poland, but oddly not the Second one. Even though Prussia and Russia did take part in the Second Partition of Poland, increasing their own power. Wouldn’t this have made Austria nervous?

As the title states, it has been my education that the Romans would explain other gods as being different versions of their own. One in particular I can think of is Hermes, i.e. Mercury, being Odin in the Norse mythos. I was also under the impression that this sentiment continued into the transition over to Christianity with the cult-like worship of saints and the claiming of sainthood of many individuals being the cause of important historical events.

Why did this mentality of seeing other cultures dirties as other names for gods or saints stop? I always thought it was quite a useful tactic to bridge religious disagreements. Did this stop during Rome's fall? Or did it stop earlier. I have tried searching around for information, but it seems to be a difficult subject past the transition to Christianity in Rome.

I am reading volume 1 of the Gulag Archipelago and the author talks about "left wing journalists" writing favorably about Soviet life and it's superiority to the western system, basing their arguments on things like Soviet propaganda and accounts of visits to potempkin villages. The true Russia was a far cry from what these foreign supporters portrayed it as, according to the author. The book is rather limited in examples however, and I would like to read these western portrayals myself. What publications and writers are he referring to, do we have access to good examples of these writings?

I'm also interested in the flip side of the coin. How did Soviet media portray life in the capitalist west? What would I read about the Westerners in the Russian newspaper in the morning before work?

Hi guys!! I'm writing an essay on female spies and how gender stereotypes played into their role and whether they were accurately represented in media, or over sexualized. I personally believe they did use gender stereotypes to manipulate soldiers into falling for that "sweet maiden" kind if vibe; however I'm having difficulty discerning between discerning the image presented in the media and how that affects the way their actions were manipulated to suit this narrative (man idek anymore).

These women were apart of the Special Operations Executive used by Winston Churchill to"set Europe a blaze", (women were primarily used to transmit information, typically not done as traditional gender roles inhibited them, which is why the use of females was such a bold move).

In particular I'm looking at their work in France and I was wondering if anyone had sources about these women that I could use or provide some insight!! Any insight about this topic would be greatly appreciated :)

It's a broad question, but I'm curious to see how both viewed each other. Was there extensive trade, conflict, or were relations somewhat silent?

I may be wrong (and if I am, then just ignore this entire post I guess), but it's my understanding that fighting along the front lines actually intensified in the closing hours of WW1. Was this due to some belief that new borders would be drawn along the front lines? Were some of the commanding officers seeking fame or recognition? Or am I correct in thinking that both sides hoped that each victory and each scrap of land would improve their bargaining power, allowing them to negotiate more favorable terms?

As we all know, the Franco-Prussian war was like WWI’s grandfather. It was one of the first instances of a ‘machine gun’ of sorts, and the Prussian’s had amazing artillery. However, I have not been able to find information regarding the little details of the war.

Question one: What kind of infantry tactics were used? Did they fight in a line formation, or was it more like guerrilla warfare? How large would the lines typically be if they were implemented? Would they try to use cover, or would they be forced to stand in the open? How often was cavalry used, and when would the infantry come in? Was artillery used WWI style, where they would use it to soften up the enemy for attack, or would it be used as more of a support/long distance role?

And question two: Role-specific firearms. What weapons (eg. revolvers) would officers be issued? Did either side make use of snipers, and if so, would they be given a special long distance rifle, or would they be given a standard-issue rifle with a scope?

Sorry about the godawful formatting, and if you could provide a source for your answer so I could read more about it, that would be greatly appreciated, however it is not necessary. If you could also make a sort of ‘example battle map’ for better understanding of the tactics that would also be great! Have a wonderful day!

From looking at images, engageantes appear to change significantly over this time period: from ruffles at the elbow to an entirely separate under-sleeve.