Would any social obligations have been greater the more white-passing I was?

I have heard that death toll of Siege of Leningrad was not entirely German army fault. Is that true that they left a corridor, or was that a fail attempt to completely cut off the city. Also what Soviet Union had done to save the city?

I’ve never heard of Iberian armies, or Franks, for instance, fielding horseback archers. Yet the “pop culture” impression I have is that Hungarians, Turks, not to mention the Mongols, fielded quite a lot of them and their military prowess seems to have been based around that.

I’ve just watched a couple of videos on horseback archery and it’s insane the type of skill that it involves. I’d pretty much assume that this type of practice could only have enough participants in a society where pretty much everyone, regardless of class/origin, was riding horses from an early age. Does that explain why westerners did not field this type of armies in the Middle ages? Is my assumption even right in the first place - I.e. that you did not have horseback archers in the west? Was this possible “skill gap” responsible for how these nomadic groups had their best over non-nomadic armies, or frankly this type of warfare was of no use for “western” armies for some reason?

Thanks!

Podcasts related to this thread or more broadly that anyone would recommend more informative podcasts

Watching a documentary on albino people in Africa I noticed they were being treated very differently, seen as ghosts and outcast or even killed. I was wondering if there were any albino slaves in the U.S, and if they were treated differently, or counted as white people, or also shamed and outcasted, or would they be killed. Being as they were white in skin color were they given they’re freedom?

So, few days ago I saw a film 'The King' and the battle gave me a thought. How did soliders tell who's on their side and who are they fighting against in the actual war/fight? I know some had like different emblems on shields, or maybe different armor. But when it was some smaller battle or something? Or did they legit just killed everything that moves?

Thanks for the answer!

Just curious about this, seeing as in some regions like say...West Africa entire indigenous religions have been replaced (or made into syncretic elements within Christianity/Islam) while Islam, which predated European colonialism, has survived.

Did the colonists have a more hands-off approach? Why? Was it fear of revolts? An analogous view to the Islamic one that "People of the Book" were more tolerable than pagans? Simply easier pickings elsewhere?

Did they ever successfully "Christianize" an Islamic area?

Lately, I've noticed these very strikingly relatable things when Persia is mentioned being ruled by a foreign empire. From as far back as Alexander the Great who had such an enormous amount of admiration towards Persia. He picked Persian advisors, adopting Persian customs and generally viewing Persian culture so highly despite the fact that he was perhaps living during the time of great Greek thinkers. You would also notice how, even during the the Mughal and Ottoman Empires, would Persian culture makes its way into fruition.

When I hear about things like this, I am reminded of China's cultural significance, when a foreign power conquers China, that said conqueror, would eventually go through a process called Sinicization.

With a lot of similarities between the two when it came to cultural significance and how much, "Persianization" would go about in neighboring countries or empires that conquers Persia. Was Persia generally speaking, the China of the Middle East?

​

​

​

​

​

I’m curious about how historically accurate the Bible actually is. Beyond the above questions, do you have any books dissecting the historical realities of the Bible?

According to The Franco Prussian War: The Prussian Conquest of France by Geoffrey Wawro, or at least from my understanding of it a significant part of the Prussian victory was due to the abysmal showing by the French. From barely having maps of their own territory to declaring a war and waiting for the Prussians to attack, as well as inferior canons mitigating their small arms advantage.

Could a healthy, prepared France have measured up against the Prussians?

I feel like a lot of what we read about the ancient Mediterranean comes primarily from Greek and Roman histories. What are examples of writings by other cultures documenting the events of the region?

ie: Are there any Carthaginian accounts of that time? Did the Achamaenids keep records that survived? Were there any commentaries by nations in the Indian subcontinent or east Asia about these curious warlike peoples who lived on the edges of a sea to the west?

I was reading about the hundred years war and obviously with combat being what it was back then some of the accounts of battle are quite horrific. Specifically what comes to mind is when longbows were used to great success by the English. Repeated charges up hills for days at a time only to be shot down or have to engage in extremely violent physical combat. This must have been extremely stressful mentally. We know that PTSD has been called different things throughout history but I've never heard if mental health of medieval soldiers was recorded in historical texts or talked about much at all.

For example- conspiracy theories. Some people deny the moon landing or the Holocaust or Sandy Hook. If they don't deny the event entirely they will change the narrative.

Are there rigorous means to discount accounts? Id wager that weight/mass of evidence is a good measure, but certainly that's not the only criteria. If it were, official histories would never change.

For a more interesting example- I've read quotes perportedly from Lincoln that he didn't plan on freeing the slaves (while campaigning) and that he would rather not free any slaves during the US civil war if he could just reunite the country. He then freed the slaves in the rebellious states, but not in the loyal states. And perportedly, he was the force behind the 13th amendment.

Did some of these events happen differently than I reported? If so how can I, a lay person, know?

Here is the story

My great grandfather was born in 1909, in Ottoman Jerusalem. Born from two german citizens, so he was german as well. In 1914, the Great War starts, and in 1917, Jerusalem falls on British hands. Now, here is the part of the story I have doubts about. My grandfather ,born in my country, tells that the british put great grandfather and his family in concentration camps in Egypt just for being german.

Edit: thanks to user u/canoe_yawl for helping me, I was able to find my great uncle's imprisonment certificate

From what I've read on "the Nordic Model", it doesn't really strike me as anything particularly unique in Western Europe. France, Italy, Germany and the UK also have and had very generous welfare states, yet they did not achieve the same results as Sweden or Denmark in terms of overall GDP per capita, low Gini, safety, etc. What happened in Scandinavia that makes them so successful, but which countries like Italy or Belgium seemingly lack?

Anyone have a source for trials conducted on captured equipment during World War 2. CIA.gov has the t34 trials as public information but nothing else that I can find. Really curious to read about what all sides thought of the enemies equipment.