So around 1100 AD these Latin translations of Aristotle came to Europe. These texts had been left in Greek for 600 years so that the translations into Latin led to a rediscovery of Aristotle.

My question is, why did Latin translations never appear for 600 years? The Byzantines would have had access to Aristotle too.

I will repost this question since the last one 9 months ago wasn't answered.

​

I will admit that I am not exactly sure how one should phrase this question and what part of what is now modern day China can be qualified for this topic, as my knowledge of early Chinese history is very limited. I suddenly realized that names, positions, relations and broad course of events concerning notable adversaries in Roman history, such as Carthage, Gauls, Germanic tribes and Parthians, are well known and researched, while I can hardly name anyone on the Chinese side during the period up to early AD, except for Xiongnu. Everybody knows that Carthage was fighting Roman republic for many years, and everybody knows that Caesar conquered Celts. What is the direct or broadly similar counterpart to these events, say, for Han empire? Who was Chinese Hannibal and what Gauls were actively resisting their conquests?

I'm mostly checking because I remember hearing about this once, and was wondering how true it was, and if I could get a more in-depth explanation of this.

Hi, I was hoping someone may be able to suggest a book on the Battle of Blair Mountain. I know the basic gist of what happened but would love to learn more. I'm looking for something that isn't too hard to follow and too dry to read. Thanks!

I recognize that it is a parable created by Cicero, but it seems to reference an actual Dionysius of Syracuse (I can't tell if it's the Elder or Younger). Given the time and place of Dionysius ruler of Syracuse, what kind of sword would have been hanging above the head of Damocles?

Note: I am hoping for a visual description or image links if possible, I'm using it for an artistic reference.

I’m currently reading Plato’s Republic and i’m a bit confused at how Socrates will shift between referencing a “God” and then “gods” in his dialogues. For instance, in the span of one paragraph (in the Republic) we go from:

…the strife and contention of the gods was instigated by Themis and Zeus

To:

“God plants guilt among men when he desires utterly to destroy a house”.

And it’s not just in Plato’s works either, or indeed just Greek texts, as I noticed Marcus Aurelius doing the same thing in his Meditations.

I’ve read that monotheism and polytheism “weren’t necessarily mutually exclusive” in the ancient world, particularly among Ionian Greeks and other philosophical schools of this time, but beyond that I don’t really know what that means.

So, my question: is this weird plurality a casualty of translations, or is there actually some greater theological dimension here that i’m missing?

I was surprised to learn that (German) cockroaches were introduced to Europe in the 18th Century and American cockroaches came to America in the 17th Century.

There must have been a point when they started to be seen as pests, when they've become so common in a home that thry couldn't be ignored.

Do we have some writings of the reactions to it? Discourse on how get rid of them? Do we have an idea how much of a problem they could have been or is the picture of streets and houses swarming with them a purely modern one?

I'm not so much asking about the veracity of the story here; I understand that we have virtually no records about it and aren't even sure of the identity of the mansa in question. However, I've had a hard time learning much about any West African ships of the time beyond river canoes that seem ill-suited to even think of going out in to open ocean (though that's "seem ill-suited" to my eye, which is very much an ignorant one on the matter of sailing). If any exploration of the Atlantic was conducted by Mali around this time, what would the ships be like?

The US never recognized the Soviet absorption of the Baltics (Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia), continuing to recognize them as independent nations under foreign occupation. How did this unfold on a practical level? Did the US bring this up in diplomatic meetings (e.g., "Hello, Ambassador." "Hello, General Secretary. When are you leaving the Baltics?")? Were there governments-in-exile recognized by the US (and perhaps others)? Did the US fund dissident groups in the Baltics?

Sea shanties seem to revolve around sailors experiences(Leave her Johnny), simple pleasures (Cape cod girls) and the need for timing work, but were any shanties created for the express purpose of pushing a specific idea/ideology?

I know they varied by region quite substantially, but was there ever a concentrated effort by a group to push an idea via song?

I ask that answers be without patriotic bias please. I understand that ofcourse, the United States and Canada did, but if Britain brought in their allies to assist with the war effort, did Britian assist the effort of their allies ?

I find Japanese history is interesting, an Emperor is a puppet of Shogun, and Shogun is a puppet of Shikken. In China or Byzantine Empire, after a general gain military and political control, they usually usurp the title of Emperor, it's kind of amazing that Japan can keep their royal family after thousand of years.

Listening to a Mary Beard documentary tonight she covers an early entry of Roman history where a grave, 500 years from the Romulus and Remus founding describes the graves occupant having succeeded in some very Roman like conquest of the southern Italian isles. But for them to have held a culture under Romulus for as long as they lasted seems like such a rare thing in history.

Disclaimer: I am taking advantage of living in the year of 2022 to ask a question about what led to something that happened in 2002, but I also ask about events that happened after that year. Feel free to ignore that part of the question due to the 4th rule of the sub, or to delete this post and tell me to rewrite the title.

In the original version of All The Things She Said (Я сошла с ума), the song begins with "Я сошла с ума (x2) / мне нужна она! (x3)", which can be translated as "I'm crazy (x2) / I need her! (x3)". In the West, however, the lyrics were rewritten as "All the things she said (x2) / runnin' through my head! (x2)".

In the original version of Malchik Gay, "Мальчик-гей (x2) / Будь со мной понаглей / От стыда не красней / Мальчик-гей (x2) / Положи на друзей / Мальчик-гей (x2) / От меня охуей / Мальчик-гей, гей" can be somewhat translated as "Gay boy, (x2) / Be a little naughty with me / Don't blush with shame / Gay boy (x2) / Leave your partner / Gay boy (x2) / Fuck me / Gay boy, gay". In the West, not only this part was rewritten as repetitions of "Malchik gay" and the bridge is sung in Russian, any reference to the gender of this person who seems to have a boyfriend was hidden somehow, including in the name of the song which was left untranslated.

Not Gonna Get Us (Нас не догонят) has very clear queer themes that can be easily interpreted even in the English version of the song, and became one of the most popular songs in the album. Even if the themes can be seen through the songs even in English, it is easily seen (or listened) that in the original Russian lyrics those themes were much more prevalent, and even explicit at moments.

All of this taken into account, the album was released in 2002, ten years after the foundation of the LDRP and one year after the foundation of United Russia, and one year after the foundation of the Eurasia Movement, not to mention Putin becoming the president in 1999 and winning the 2000 elections with more than half of the votes, among other important moments for Russian conservatism in general, from the more acceptable spheres to the most extreme ones.

How did Russia, a country known for it's conservative values, for the prevalence of Orthodox Christianity, for it's anti-queer policies, was able to produce one of the biggest queer cultural symbols of that moment in history? t.A.T.u went to become an international success, and is still being listened by a large number of people, to the point of Трибьют t.A.T.u. "200 по встречной" being released just last year with covers done by popular Russian artists including bands like Molchat Doma and, still today, the band is remembered as a strong cultural icon even if it's members later admitted to not being queer at all and doing it all just for the marketing, which leads to the thought: They not only created a queer cultural icon in literally Russia. They could do it while not being queer. In Russia.

Do we have a clear picture of how Russian society "allowed" this to happen? Why/how was this doable? Was the queer scene in 90s/00s Russia this strong to the point of creating mainstream icons because it was maybe even more accepted and profitable than it appeared to be in the West, if I think about what happened to the lyrics, and if it did, what happened for it to vanish like dust like it never happened, losing power to the point of the Gay Propaganda Law being signed in 2013, forcing the shift from mainstream acts to counterculture icons like Pussy Riot?

As a short question: What situation led to this internationally important moment of Russian queer history amidst the growth of their notorious conservatism, and how did things got so bad since then?

On one hand, many militaries were still using M1 Garands and similar style rifles when the AK-47 adopted by the Russian military in 1949. On the other hand, the first time the general (western) public got a glimpse of the AK-47 wouldn't be until 1956 when it was used during that year's Hungarian Revolution -- by which time the west also had its own assault rifles like the FN FAL and the G3.

How much did the west know about the AK-47 in its early years? Did it spur any immediate reactions, like how the US immediately responded to the MiG-25 with the F-15? And in general, are there any good books that chronicle the history of the ubiquitous Kalashnikov rifles and their derivatives?