Is it an accurate assessment of a revolution spiraling out of control, or were the events of the revolution more of a bygone conclusion?

Edit: *nor did they have auto correct

So, this is something that has been bothering me for a while, in various contexts when discussing arab history (that is, history of the arabian peninsula) the concept of tribes pop up, be it for the ruling dynasties of kingdoms (eg. the Ghassanids), or when discussing the the prophet (pbuh) Muhammed and him coming from the tribe of Quraysh. Problem is, a lot of the time various secondary sources seem to assume that one is already familiar with how these tribes worked, and what they were, and refer to them kind of assuming the reader is already familiar with the concept.

The basic gist seems to be a set of family groupings deriving from a common ancestor (possibly mythological) but what kind of social and political role did they play? There are sometimes alluded to subdivisions?

how accurate was this film about life aboard british ships in the 1700s. as we see there was extreme discipline to point where not dancing well enough could get you tied to a mast and gagged. the sailors safety was seen as secondary to a captains will, as we see bligh order to go around the cape horn so they can reach jamaica faster, eventhough the journey was so dangerous the last time he was forced to turn back. as well as this, did naval officers behave like the ones we seen in the film?.

Did they slowly start losing their power or they shifted to other illegal activities like extortion or drug trafficking?

Essentially title. In watching the documentary They Shall Not Grow Old, I noticed that many of the soldiers mentioned how they thought they would be “home by Christmas,” and that this thought was perpetrated by their ancestors’ experiences in wars from the previous century. Teddy Roosevelt even referred to the Spanish-American war as a “splendid little war” when describing his experiences as a soldier. Yet, wars have always been terrible and traumatic experiences for most involved, so where did this popular view of war come from?

I heard this several times from Muslims, pro-Islam celebrates and scholars. However, some scholars and atheists insisted that the opposite is true. By checking relatively recent researches, which side is more close to truth?

She was a member of the Ptolemaic dynasty who were Greeks descended from one of Alexander the Great's generals. However they were a class of Greeks ruling over Egyptians and I'm curious to know if they had adopted their mannerism, dress or had indeed begun to physically resemble their subjects.

I know about the Gunpowder Plot and how Guy Fawkes came to be the face of the plot and, in later years, an icon for rebellion in various movements across the world. I also understand how November the 5th came to be a celebration of Bonfire Night and a celebration of Guy Fawkes' failed attempt to bomb the houses of parliament.

I also understand that all this, the Gunpowder Plot and the attempt to blow up the palace and the parliament, was as a result of the discriminatory laws against the Catholic Church in England that had been placed in previous monarchies and which continued during the reign of King James. My question is this: did the failed plot have any impact on the laws that were already in force against the Roman Catholic Church or not?

Was overpopulation an actual concern or was this a way for elites to ‘other’ working classes?

Did India suffer many famines before the Raj? If so what were the effects?

Thanks.

It would definitely have slowed them down immensely due to weight but there was no danger of being flanked or charged and they would have been nearly bulletproof, allowing them to progress relatively safely even with the reduced mobility. Wouldn't this be vastly superior to charging across exposed terrain against heavy machine guns? It wouldn't have been expensive or hard to produce either since it's just steel plates.

I've been reading a lot about early Christianity lately, and I'm struck by how many of the actions of the early Church seem to have been taken in direct opposition to the Arians (with an I, not Aryans). It seems like it was always a minority belief, but was there ever a possibility that it would have become mainstream Christianity? Were there pockets of Arians, or did populations have both Arians and Trinitarians? Where did Arians live? Why were they so hated?

I know that non-Trinitarianism exists today, but many of these groups don't trace back to the early church.

It seems like a more devoutly secessionist political figure, such as a Fire Eater, would have been seen as a stronger choice to lead the Confederate executive. Why was it Davis?

So this may be a shot in the dark, but just maybe there is someone out there who does. Why did great Britain test their nuclear weapons in Australia instead of testing them near their own Homeland? This has been killing me. Thank you to those who are smarter than me :)

Hi I was wondering if any historians out there had information on the sabbath becoming Sunday. Looking for information on time period it was changed, who changed it, and when it stopped being debated. Also looking for info on other commandments that were changed. I don’t quite fully understand how man can believe he can change God’s word. I know there are Christian churches that still follow Saturday sabbath, ie 7th day baptist. Also looking for history of denominations that have kept the Saturday as sabbath. Thank you.