I been hearing for a while a "what if" about Ukraine's post-soviet nuclear weapons that it gave up and how much of an edge that would be during the crisis with Russia.

Thing is, being realistic, did they have the option at all? or they were "softly coerced" to give them up to "avoid future problems"? if you catch my drift.

Also I been hearing what a wasted opportunity post-soviet Ukraine was and how people expected they would eventually join the EU, but did the EU did anything at all to integrate Ukraine? to influence its politics more towards them and away from Russia? or they just waited for that to happen out of thin air?

I am an Australian born to two Northern Irish parents who is wanting to further understand The Troubles. Can anyone recommend any books or resources that comprehensively explain history of The Troubles that focuses on the entire conflict. (not a biography)

As per the title

While I am not Muslim, it is my understanding that it is considered sacrilege and sinful to lay siege to Mecca and Medina in Islam, so it would only be a justifiable action if viewed as reclaiming the two holy cities from an illegitimate ruler. While the Saudis did consider the Ottoman Sultanate's claim to the Caliphate to be illegitimate, I have read that their reasoning was that they did not control the two holy cities (since the Saudis themselves had conquered them). In my admittedly limited understanding, only the Khawarij considered this might-makes-right approach to claiming the title of Caliph to be a legitimate means of arbitration.

Indeed, I am not aware of any time in history between the death of Muhammad and the Saudi conquest of Hejaz in 1803 that Mecca was not, at least nominally, held by a political entity claiming the Caliphate (or ceremonially through vassals), unless the brief Qarmation interlude is included. For a ruler that did not claim the title of Caliph to besiege and capture the cities of Mecca and Medina was therefore a significant break in nearly twelve centuries of Islamic tradition. Given that the Saudis expounded (and at least theoretically, continue to expound) a pan-Islamic Wahhabist doctrine, why did they not attempt to proclaim themselves Caliphs, and how did they justify their capture of Mecca without being Caliphs?

I'm just a big geek about Poland's weird occasional celtic roots. Please tell me all your weird hybrid Gaelic-Polish facts.

By authentic, I mean it displays the events that took place correctly and without bias. How do historians know which text is displaying the events accurately and which on is a myth or false?

Henri Pirenne writes in his "Medieval Cities" that the European trade network which was established by the Romans broke down following the Islamic conquests. I couldn't understand the reason behind this. Couldn't European merchants have simply kept trading? Was religion that much of a factor or are there other reasons?

Was there any evidence of a real witch coven of heretics? Assuming not how about evidence that those hunted as witches were really just pagans and folk religions?

I know cathars and other offshoots of classic Christianity were kinda demonized, so is there any evidence some of those feared to be witches practiced some kinda of tradition (religious, medicines, science, or folk traditions) that was old and thus feared/demonized? Or do we assume all were kinda wrong place, wrong time, not liked, or part of a hallucination?

I've read about sxusem and akutaq which are sometimes labeled under "ice cream" (even though there's no dairy in the preparation), and sweetened by berries or roots. Were these actually considered desserts, or is that an idea impressed by Europeans encountering the dishes?

What political motivations did they have? Was it just religious piety and devotion to the Pope and the Church? Was that enough to abandon the prospect of consolidating power at home?

Why did Americans stop at the pacific? Why didn’t they attempt to annex mexico or canada as a whole? I understand that there would be major issues with logistics but that has rarely halted western expansion.

You always see the disclaimer “No animals were harmed in the making of this film.” Which leads me to wonder whether or not it was commonplace for animals to be harmed during production of earlier films. I know there was a lot of “human-supremacy” during the industrial revolution so I don’t think it would be that far fetched for animals to be seen as pawns for entertainment. Then again I’m not a historian so I don’t know for sure.

The rise of the Bactrian and Indo-Greek kingdoms following the conquest by Alexander the Great brought about significant cultural exchange between India and the Hellenistic Kingdoms.

We know some Greeks converted to Buddhism, and Buddhist monks were known to have travelled to Alexandria in Egypt, and its argued introduced a philosophical and religious shift. Why was Buddhism so influential and not Hinduism or Jainism?

EDIT: I have maybe been premature in asking this question. There are some problems with the assumptions in my question. Firstly, it’s conceivable that there was earlier contact between the Greeks and Indians in the Persian empire. Secondly, after spending the morning reading more critically, I now understand that perhaps the only indication we have of Buddhist monks in Alexandria are the pillars of Ashoka in India and even then it could be argued he meant ambassadors rather than monks. The Greeks who are known to have converted were from the Bactrian and Indo-Greek kingdoms, or from Greco-Buddhist art, in other words only those right on the doorstep of India. Finally, I’m very dubious that Buddhism had much of an effect on philosophy or religion in the Hellenistic World or later, rather than similar ideas appearing in different places within 200 or so years of each other, although I am open to the idea that Pyrrho may have been intrigued by ideas he picked up while in the court of Alexander the Great in India.

Finally, I now appreciate that the Sauryan empire conquered and dominated the Bactrian kingdom (the Indo-Greek kingdoms only emerging again as the empire began to collapse) so it absolutely made sense for the Bactrian Greek elite to align themselves with the conquering court, and the adoption of Buddhism would be part of this, especially after Ashoka adopted the religion.

So what I would ask is what do we know of the Indian gymnosophists mentioned by ancient writers and did they represent Buddhism, Jainism or Hinduism (or indeed some other Indian religion)?

Physiologically they look so different, so I wonder did something ever happen when they discovered someone who looked so different from themselves.

As the question asks. Is there an economic definition? Or a socio-economic definition? Are there energetic debates over whether say an English yeoman like Isaac Newton's parents is a peasant?

Hugo in Les Miserables mentions a character presenting a yellow passport, yet all the googling only mentions is as a permit for prostitution in imperial Russia. It may be helpful that a character is an ex-con.

I've often heard historians say that one thing hollywood gets wrong is the use of swords, and their abundance of them in films and tv shows. From what I understand swords were fairly expensive to make, and were prone to bending or breaking easily. Where as axes or spears were cheaper and easier to make. Please correct me on that if I'm wrong

​

I was wondering if the gladius was used as a weapon of the roman military as much as we see in popular media? If so how was the roman empire able to produce so many swords due to the fact they're not as cost effective as axes or spears? Or did the roman empire actually use a variety of weapons and we're just used to seeing only one? obviously this is a bit generalized given the fact that the roman empire went through several phases which would have effected their choice of military technology.

Google has not been my friend today, so here I am. I’m setting a story set in the 1950s, specifically summer of 1954. It’s about two teenage girls, who fall in love. Clearly, that’s not something that’s allowed then. So if anyone could help me really grasp the struggles of lesbians in 1950s America that would be great(links would be appreciated too), or just some trivial questions like: How quickly did people recover from the Great Depression? Were there some people who weren’t all that affected by the Depression in America? Train time from Chicago to Georgia in 1954? Thanks!

Did any civilizations one could call "ancient" or "classical" (Egyptians/Romans/Mayans etc) have their own classical civilizations that they saw as "before their time" or a source of their own, contemporary culture? If so, how did they know about these civilizations - did they preserve the literature, art, and/or buildings or ruins?

I understand that ancient simple bows were made of different materials and are not as easy to draw as modern compound bows (or even modern simple bows which are made with different flexible materials allowing for ease of use).

But how much strength did it really take to draw those large ancient bows. Generally speaking, of course, how much strength is needed. You don’t have to describe the number in kg, rather just qualitatively informing us how much strength they took relative to modern bows.

I just finished reading a book about Irish Welsh Britannia and Scott ancient lore and wow it granted me such huge insight to how much these people avoided fighting and seemingly attempted to make up for insults and mostly honorable people. NOTHING like the movies. Is this true to history or is it just lore?

I saw that during WWII soldiers where under fire for days in the trenches, so they had designated areas for soldiers would go to masturbate.

I know the French Monarchy didn’t care too much for either Acadia or Canada but would the more radical voices in the Revolution had seen the lack of care as a betrayal to the French people in North America? Obviously this would’ve been impossible though as any rational mind would know the Royal Navy would never allow a large enough French Force that could threaten their position in North America pass the Atlantic; simply asking because the French Revolution isn’t known for producing very many rational minds.