i am in an argument with some white supremacist and that guy is trying to hold the point that theree were more white then black slaves, that wouldn't make sense right? the european slave ships went to pick up slaves in africa to ship them to the americas or am i wrong here?

I find it quite odd that the Franking identity was established in what is now France (Gallia), and not Germany (Germania)

Why did East Francia fade into obscurity, yet West Francia embraced the title, and its descendants named themselves after it? The Franks were certainly closer to the other Germanics east of the Rhine river, than the Galloromans of the west. Whether that is culture (maybe until the adoption of Christianity), language, and/or heritage.

You'd think that Germany would be more likely to continue with the Frankish legacy, but in a very short time they separated themselves, despite being the Franks' origin (Franconia), and were called Regnum Teutonicum (Teutonic Kingdom) Meanwhile the latin-speaing Gauls (Galloromans) of Gallia adopted their name which still lives on as France.

So I am British, and I have been hearing in the news and elsewhere on Reddit that before the Civil War, the Republicans were against slavery, and the Democrats were for it. However afterwards, the parties slowly switched and now the modern day Democrats were once the old Republicans and vice versa. Could someone confirm if this is true, and if so how did it happen?

(If this question is not fit for or relevant to this sub, then I sincerely apologise and I will delete this post accordingly. If this is the case and if possible, it would be helpful for anybody to direct me to any other answers elsewhere on either Reddit or the internet as a whole, or point me to better areas to posit this question)

There is a large historical field of discussion related to the Bible as well as early Christianity and Judaism; its authenticity, accuracy, context, authorship etc. and archaeological and historical work is continually carried out and discussed from as wide a range as the historicity and life of the 'real' Jesus, to the influences early Christianity has been subject to from nearby faiths or belief systems. There are many comprehensive works that have been written analysing both early Christian and Jewish works as well as records of said religions by outside or secular observers. Consequently, there is a great, and often very interesting, amount of easily accessible literature available discussing practically every aspect of these religions in depth.

However, then why is there not an equivalent for the Hindu and Buddhist religions? Whilst I understand that these faiths fundamentally differ from Abrahamic religions, it is not as if there is want of religious and philosophical literature and texts available for these faiths nor as if there is a dearth of history, context, and authenticity to determine or analyse. The existing literature that is present is nowhere close to as detailed, extensive, in-depth, debated, or based in real archaeology as Biblical academia is, nor is there anywhere near as much of it available. Heck, we have 2 different (generally very active) biblical academic subreddits, yet none for Hinduism or Buddhism.

Is it largely due to a fundamental difference between the scriptures of the Dharmic and Abrahamic faiths? Or is it simply a bias in that Christianity and Judaism in western academia is more relevant culturally and religiously (I believe a majority of Biblical academics are Christian) and so these are likely to be studied far more, and also have a larger history of study behind them?

Thanks in advance for any answers.

I am watching the Battlefield series and I’m currently on the episode: “The Battle of Normandy” and this statement is made. It is not expounded upon. Why did Churchill believe that the invasion of Italy was more important to dealing with the future of the Soviet union?

Was it religious texts only or did they also read and write about science, history, geography,..?

I read his wikipedia page and a short article on the Smithsonian, but that just left me more curious. Was he a slave owner? Did he support the cause of slavery? Was he more motivated by his work with Native Americans?

What's up with this guy?

Seeing a ton of social media posts about "Rah Rah Americans! We know how to kick ass in winning revolutions", I wanted to avoid being taken in by propaganda and make sure that something I did a project on back in middle school is actually true. Basically, it was that American soldiers at the time of the Revolution were very sloppy and ill-trained in warfare, especially compared to the British at the time who had all the military tactics. Then I believe it was Baron Von Stueben of the French military (I could be completely wrong on that part) stepped in and trained the soldiers under Washington's command to be able to fight back against the British army. How much am I accurately recalling?

I've recently read that the concept of heaven was adapted by the early Catholic church from the concept of Elysium, whereas in the Bible it states only entry to "the kingdom of God".

Is the perception of heaven during for christianity wholly due to the Roman pantheon's influence and then appended by Dante's works?

Where does the concept of hell stem from? Is it a biblical concept or was it also adapted by the church somehow?

I'm thinking about going back to school and finishing my history degree. I've done a lot of recreational reading of history books throughout the years. I always stop to think about things while reading but after I finish a book I rarely can recall a single thing I'd learned while reading. Academics always seem like sponges that memorize everything they read.

In the history books we were taught that many if not most of so called "communist" governments do not have a good racket for human rights. It is well known that the Soviet Union would suppress many of its critics; even to the point of sending them to prison camps.

Or were they so convinced by their ‚Aryan supremacy‘ that they didn’t conceive of the utility of said fleeing intellectuals?