A squad? A section? A platoon? A company? Also what would the roles (in terms of weaponry and duties) and ranks be for this unit?

According to Eric Cline (1177 BC), the Shekelesh and Sherden, two of the Sea people groups mentioned in Egyptian writings, likely came from Sicily and Sardinia respectively. The Peleset, who would end up settling in modern day Palestine and Israel, are assumed to be the biblical Philistines. Linguistic and archeological evidence points to an origin in the Mycenaean Greek culture zone.

The Denyen are hypothesized to be Homer's "Danaans", referring to the Mycenaeans.

What consensus is there on this topic in general today? Any new revelations or theories as of late?

Who was the last known European knight to go from page to squire to knight and fight in war ? I have been trying to find the answer to this question for some time now and i was hoping that someone here will know the answer .

I’d really like some support on this because I can’t find anything on the internet.

And yes, I forgot the question mark in the title. Sorry!

And how much would she have been able to find out if interested?

(Beside the obvious fact that Obelix crushed the Sphinx' nose.)

For example, one of those siblings would become the crown prince and heir to the throne, and sometimes this was pre-determined as early as childhood. So what was the dynamic like between a prepubescent or adolescent crown prince and his siblings, especially brothers, of similar ages? Was he compelled or encouraged to establish an air of aloofness and dominance over his brothers? Or were the rules not that strict, and he was able to engage in playing and "rough-housing" with his brothers as relative equals (up until he reaches adulthood, of course)? If the childhood power dynamic was relatively informal and relaxed, how did that affect the dynamic once all the siblings reach adulthood?

The answer may very well be as simple as "Yes, crown princes were allowed to have a normal childhood with their siblings". I just want to make sure.

I had always known about the somali ethiopian war but never actually bothered to do much searching on it and i hope someone can answer my question which is "why did the soviets choose to aid the ethiopian communists instead of the somali communists?".My personal guess may be that the soviets didnt see the somalians as real communists and maybe as just anti imperialists who simply had communism second and nationalism first similarly to pol pot and the other anti imperialist movements in southeast asia.Anyway idk much about this conflict so i would apreciate the help

I've heard a lot of people say that Palestine belonged to the Jews thousands of years ago before the Muslims came and so now it is understandable that they want their land back. But it can also be said that when the Holocaust was happening, Palestinian Muslims were the ones to welcome them with open arms, the real problems started when the Jews started asking for their own country right in the heart of Palestine which consequently resulted in wars and conflicts that exist to this day.

And as long as "claiming back their land" goes, the Native Indians could make the same claim in the United States, would the world support them then?

Hi /r/AskHistorians

I am writing an essay for school in which I want to critique each of Woodrow Wilson's fourteen points and explore why they were a bad basis to use for the peace process during the Paris peace conference. I want to hit on topics like how guilty the plan is of things like Euro-centrism and hypocrisy.

I was wondering if you guys might know good sources for me to use?

Currently I have a few sources but what I'd really like is some relevant quotes from politicians about their thoughts of the plan. I particularly liked this one from Theodore Roosevelt "If the League of Nations is built on a document as high-sounding and as meaningless as the speech in which Mr. Wilson laid down his fourteen points, it will simply add one more scrap to the diplomatic waste paper basket. Most of these fourteen points... would be interpreted... to mean anything or nothing."

Thanks so much for any help or opinions you guys can give me.

So we've been studying the Aeneid recently in ClaCiv at "school" and my teacher made a comment which threw me off: that Augustus would have asked Virgil to write a poem for him. The sentence seems normal, but then I thought: to what extent would Augustus even be familiar with Virgil, who was actually a subordinate to one of his ministers (if that is the word). And moreover, to what extent would he, and any other emperor for that matter, actually have been close to him and other advisors or servants close to him - since the upper society in Rome mostly stayed within itself, did Augustus or other emperors even consider having friendships or to get to know those working for him who were not directly in the upper class (hence my question involving important civil servant)?

A bit of a long one but there's my question.

A little obscure but I’ve enjoyed reading about Brazil’s history. I’m having trouble finding out about the most important cause for the changes in this period. Any insight would be greatly appreciated.

is there any family you consider to be consistently better than the others? Feel free to justify your pick through whatever means. However some points id be interested in is most acquired land, longest rule, millitary success, individual quality of each king/queen and most sway in the political landscape.

Sorry if this was asked before.

But I just wanted to know why does the pope resides in the Vatican and not in Nazareth or Bethlehem. I mean, what is the spiritual significance of a place that was not visited by Jesus?

This applies to other churches (sects) that also have popes residing outside of the Holyland.

why?

I don’t know where i heard this but i heard a theory that having elite forces can make an army as a whole weaker. This may be anecdotal and not based on fact, but the theory went that by having an elite unit/Special forces, an army would be made weaker as the best soldiers would be concentrated and therefore would not rise as high in rank. Where as not having special forces, these soldiers would be allowed to climb the rank and this would lead to the best officer leading the men. And by having experienced soldiers spread out in the ranks it could make the other soldiers around them better. Think how well a squad just out of training could do vs one with an experienced veteran in it. The veteran squad would be better.

I’m sorry if this is the wrong place to ask this. But i can’t find anything on google or looking at other ask subs. I feel like this is the best place to ask as maybe there are a few WW2 historians floating about that could maybe answer.

Please Pm if you have a better sub that i could ask this on.

This is a multi-page essay I'll have to write for the end of the year. I already knew plenty of reasons as to why Germany couldn't win, but I want to include more details, facts, and what not in this essay.

I'll take documentaries, articles, or anything that can help me with this essay.

Would it be smart to play dead if your side was losing the battle and then runoff when the opposing side leaves, or would the other side confirmed the kills on the battlefield.

It seems to be debated that Buddha was born around 583 BCE. This led me to question what other philosophers that were alive during that time had to say about him and his followers if any? Is there any documentation or factual evidence that any prominent philosophers knew about him at the time? As well as wrote comments about him or his teachings?

Did anyone publicly debate his teachings that weren’t from India? Or visited temples and speculated on him and his followers. I am basically asking for current speculations of that time. What was the general consensus of him outside of India during that venture or close years around his popularity?

I am currently working on a Bachelors in history, and I’ve found Chicago Manual of Style frustrating. Although not many of my professors expect us to use primary sources, when they do they haven’t really explained how to cite them or how to deal with digital archives and repositories.

However, I’ve been doing genealogical research for a long time, and one of my favorite resources is Evidence Explained by Elizabeth Shown Mills, which has a a model format for almost every source imaginable. I feel like Evidence is a better system for keeping up with an ever shifting digital/historical landscape. Could someone familiar with both systems explain how they are different? I know that Evidence is based on CMS; are they similar enough that I can use the models from Evidence in my papers?

Do historians and genealogists have a different relationship to sources?