It is from the Hafez poem-

"Last night I took my troubles to The Magian sage whose keen eyes see A hundred answers in the wine Whose cup he, laughing, showed to me. I questioned him, "When was this cup That shows the world's reality

Handed to you?" He said, "The day Heaven's vault of lapis lazuli Was raised, and marvelous things took place By Intellect's divine decree, And Moses' miracles were made And Sameri's apostasy."

Looking it up only shows other versions of the poem. Is it related to Moses and the Abrahamics?

I’m watching this movie that’s based off of WWII and in the movie there are shops that say, “Jew prohibited” or “Jews aren’t allowed to sit on benches” etc. Are these fictional? Or were they actually real? If they were real, then how could people tell Jews from non Jews? In private, I could understand, but in public, how? A white person could easily go up in public and sit on a bench. Unbeknownst to anyone that they are Jewish. Please explain!

For example, when Caeser was off conquering Gaul who ran Cisalpine Gaul while he was away? Presumably there was the needs of the governor didn't end just because he was out a conquering.

Such as other ancient Canaanite people, or the Egyptians, Babylonians, Mongolians, etc...

and do these bodies of work exist in such an extent as the Bible?

I am unsure why all the comments have been deleted, there were some really interesting and informative responses

I am currently writing a fantasy book which resembles the Medieval times/Middle Ages and hit a brick wall with fashion as I know absolutely nothing about Medieval fashion and I can't really find any good resources on the topic. Can anyone help me out or know of any sites that I could use to research the topic?

I was just wondering what ways moats would have been filled in the middle ages considering the lack of modern technology. Were methods such as aqueducts used and did it differ from country to country or over time? Was it expensive for a moat to be filled? How accessible was a moat for castle creators?

I mean, when no uprising was active and the province was peaceful. Did soldiers have to do something useful, or just were living in the province, getting their salaries just for presence?

I'm especially interested in the late Republic period.

Why is Wales so small compared to England in terms of population? What development led to this. I checked the population estimates during the norman conquest and Wales was much larger in comparison with England than it is now.

From what I've gathered online, most of the sources state that the mongols were considered outsiders in Yuan China, but I'm wondering what the average joe would think. Despite their poor treatment of the southerners, (also please give me some details. All I found was that the southerners were worst off in court and was only allowed 1 knife per 5 household. However, I don't know if it is true.) They brought a lot of prosperity to China with the silk road. The reason (that I was able to find) that the Yuan dynasty collapsed was because of famines, taxes and wars. Which led to higher taxes, leading to a rebellion. Generally, the websites I checked were very vague.

What would the average Chinese think of the Mongols?

How did American colonists refer to the Revolutionary War while the event was taking place? Did they use the same names we use today (The War of Independence, American Revolutionary War etc.) or did they call it something different? If so, did these names vary by colony/region?

Was this a privilege for only the wealthy? Could working class white farm owners afford to have slaves?

I've always wondered about this. I believe I read that the V1 and V2 projects were part of their nuclear program, as well. Is that true?

I ask this because I'm currently stuyding History in my 2^(nd) semester and did run across this problem while researching the events around the death of Harald Hardrada and the fight of William of Normandy against Harald Godwinsson in 1066. I found only three books (1066. The Battle for the Crown of England by Joerg Peltzer, 1066. The Conquest of England by the Normans by Dominik Waßenhoven and 1066. The Year of the Three Battles by Frank McLynn) and consider this to be a bare-bones minimum, but since I do not want to rely on three - possibly very different - perspectives given by the writers, I'm searching for more sources. It'd be nice if the fine folks around here could recommend some literature so I'm not completely boxed out of this topic.

A succession dispute arose following the death of Edward the Confessor, King of England in 1066. William, Duke of Normandy ultimately prevailed following the demise of his main competitor at the Battle of Hastings. Was the Anglo-Saxon state a distinct entity from the Anglo-Norman one? Edward the Confessor never gets a numeral, so I'm wondering why Edward Longshanks is Edward I and not Edward II of England.

Reading a little about the quakers they seem to always have been on the right of history. The were actively against slavery since their creation. They were in favor of equal rights for everyone. They were one of the firsts groups to denounce Hitler and give safe heavens to the jews... they seem to have a very good record.

But I might be biased, or my sources may be. Mostly, I suspect that while some quakers held a few progressive views not all of them did... so I come to you.

Are the quakers as upstanding as they seem at first?, are there regretful instances in quaker history?