I was looking on the wikipedia article on the History of Islamic Economics and noticed that in the section titled "Industrial Development" it states that in the early Islamic World there were multiple industrial uses of hydropower, tide mills, wind power and fossil fuels such as petroleum - and that by the 11th century every islamic province had industrial mills in operation. Is this accurate? I was lead to believe that the first and only industrial revolution happened in Europe, but then again I do understand that the Islamic Golden Age catalysed many scientific revolutions. However, I'm not sure about the validity of the sources and don't really have the time available to scrutinise their accuracy. Any help would be much appreciated.

There are plenty of ancient places that are easily accessible and above ground.

Why is it however that a vast amount of other historic cities and areas end up multiple feet under the ground? I get that in some places you could have a flood or landslides or things like this but what about all the others? How does a bustling city go from well populated to 3 feet under ground 500 years later?

as in,what did the Dodo birds have that they didn't bother to domesticate them?

Why are there no high quality biographies of Leonid Brezhnev? Is this some kind of bias I'm unaware of?

There are English-language Pulitzer Prize winning or nominated biographies of Stalin, Khrushchev, Gorbachev, and even a couple books that take a stab at Yeltsin despite still being so close to the material. Go back further and there are stacks and stacks of quality material on Nicholas & Alexandra, Peter the Great, Catherine the Great, Ivan the Terrible, etc.

It seems strange to me that no heavy duty academic (e.g. Stephen Kotkin) would wade in and try to make his career on someone that had such a big impact on history.

Sorry If I sound stupid I love history but my brain fails to accept it. But in some images pilgrims are depicted loving native Americans and co existing. But then obviously something happened right obviously because correct me if I’m wrong but Weren’t they eventually killed off for the most part?? I just want to know a brief timeline I guess?? Or what happened? I’m guessing Disease also had something to do with it possibly. Also if someone is invested in this where would I be able to find pilgrim art I’m interested in there art :))) also what music did they like :00

More specifically, when did historians and history-adjacent academics start critically assessing works of history? Is it a more modern discipline or have historiographers been trading barbs about sources and evidence since long before?

I hope that this question is not too general (i did read the rules) but since the pandemic I have watched a lot of documentaries including ones on US Grant, Patton, and Churchill. From what I gather, alcoholics make great military leaders. Is there any truth to this? How much were these brilliant men drinking?

Honestly this question could apply to a lot of more recent civilizations too. I assume soldiers in the Roman army were put through the ringer of exercises, but what did that look like? Sorry if this question is too broad. I’m mostly interested in how our modern-day exercise routines may have been utilized by folks long ago as well, despite their non-sedentary lifestyles.

I was watching professor Freedman in Yale's The Early Middle Ages on YT (thanks to whoever shared it btw) and he talks about how christianity spread much by the influence of roman Emperors, either by forbidding and killing, either by making it official, but he also talks about the question of tolerance and how christianity was a more predatory religion than paganism because it didn't tolerate the existence of the other gods. So it got me curious about how did christianity rise before this (I imagine it must have been a big enough problem by the time of Deocletian) and how did it relate to roman paganism up until then. I'm sorry if this has been asked, or if it's not pertinent, I couldn't find anything in the FAQ and it's impossible to search christianity topics online with no bibliography thread

EDIT: forgot the question mark on the title

Did the Keltoi migrate into France or were they people already living in the area that adopted Celtic culture?

It's very difficult to find questions that have approved answers at a glance.

What about flaring questions that have answers approved?

What happend in this war? Who won'd the war? And why did they declare war at each other? I know that the question is irrelevant but in the day it just a question

I've heard that work by Sally Roesch Wagner makes the claim that rape was introduced into the Americas only with European contact.

I’ve only been reading it in passing so don’t have a very in depth understanding of the scholarship, but why does she claim this? What is it based on?

(This is a slightly overwhelming post. I would be happy if anybody could answer even part of my questions)

Buddhism originated from the mainland Indian subcontinent (specifically the Eastern Indo-Gangetic plain in Bihar), but went all but extinct with most Buddhists in India (0.7% of the population) being recent converts to escape the Hindu caste system. I understand why Buddhism went extinct in India (there have already been multiple posts about Buddhist decline in India), but then why did Buddhism not only survive, but thrive in Sri Lanka? Considering how heavily Sri Lankan history, culture, politics, architecture and national identity stem from and are intertwined in Theravada Buddhism, it would be a surprise to most people when crossing right across the Mannar strait to India, Buddhism is little more than a fuzzy historical memory.

So what was different in Sri Lanka (from India) that allowed Buddhism to survive intact and flourish? Buddhism (especially Theravada Buddhism) arguably would be very different or even non-existent were it not for Sri Lankan monks writing down Buddhist scriptures such as the Tripitaka, and recording much of Buddhist history and thought.

3 reasons I've often heard about the decline of Buddhism in India (I'm going to be comparing these to Sri Lanka) are that:

a) The rural (and overwhelming majority) of the population remained Hindu- if this were the case in India, why did it not stay the same in Sri Lanka?

b) That Indian kings began to support Hinduism and stopped supporting Buddhism- what then made the Sinhalese kings continue supporting Buddhism, even in the face of repeated Tamil Hindu invasions?

c) That Buddhist monks lost debates to 'Hindu' (I put this in quotation marks as they wouldn't have seen themselves as part of an unified religion in opposition to Buddhism) revivalists, scholars, and priests. If this was the case, why did it not happen in Sri Lanka? Was it not visited by these Hindu priests? Did the Theravada Buddhists win the debate in Sri Lanka?

Thanks in advance if you can answer any part of my question (s).

Why ex-british colonies are doing well compared to ex-french colonies? By looking to USA, CANADA, AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AFRICA, BOTSWANA, INDIA, makes you think why ex-british colonies are not suffering such as ALGERIA, MOROCCO, TUNISIA, MALI, SENEGAL, CONGO.

Did UK helped them after their independence? Or the colonial period has less harmed them compared to France?

For context, I'm currently studying the history of the Second Amendment. It seems that there was a direct link between "keeping and bearing arms" and the maintenance of a militia so as to avoid a nation-wide standing army.

So when armies were raised, did the soldiers bring their own guns with them? Or were they issued their own upon arrival? What type of guns were used during this time?