Modern depictions of the "End Times" and post-apocalyptic imagery center around a nuclear fallout type doomsday scenario (bombed out buildings, mutated people, nuclear winter, etc.) Were depictions of a post-civilization world common in other eras, and if so, what kinds of imagery and characteristics did these depictions have ?

I would think that Iranian princes would be more favorable to something like Kharijism, where membership in Muhammad's family or the Quraysh isn't necessary to be a caliph. Why did the Majus of all adopt the most conservative political Islamic ideology?

We all know about the Great Schism that rendered Orthodox Christianity into its own offshoot, and how it was treated as a heresy and subject to Crusader violence in the later Crusades.

But why did Orthodoxy not have its own reformation movement? Was it a lack of significant issues related to excess and restricting access to common folk a la the Catholic religion? Were there not any issues with corruption and concentration of power? Google didn't have much to say on the topic.

As the title says: what, if anything, did Churchill know about the Manhattan Project at that point in WWII? I know that there were British people involved in the project, but I don't know what the upper echelons of British government did or didn't know about the project at that point.
I'm asking because we discussed in class today Churchill's frustration with FDR's practically giving away the farm to Stalin during the Tehran Conference, and I wondered how much his knowledge (or lack thereof) of the secret work of the Manhattan Project may have influenced his opinion. My professor wasn't sure what, if anything, the British government knew of the U.S.'s atomic development at the time, so I thought I'd ask here.

Why was Italy absolutely terrible in WW2?

I'm currently reading a lot in the Rise and fall of the Plantageant Dynasty. And if Richard III did infact murder Princes Edward and Richard. I was wondering what you guys thought of the subject.

I’ve never been able to identify the polity itself, but I’ve heard a story about how during the of time of the Mongols, a polity basically killed off one of the Mongol messengers and the consequences of this was the entire eradication of that one nation. I’m pretty sure it was located somewhere around South-West Pakistan.

In particular, one that goes over

1. "Humane" slavery in the South Cheerful slaves.
2. State rights over Slavery as the cause.
3. Right to secession.
4. Tariffs' role in agitation, one of the popular citations of Northern power.
5. The partial acceptance of the Lost Cause in Standard Curriculum during "Reconciliation" that undermined African Americans.

I'm familiar enough with the Constitution of the Confederacy to get a grasp on how contradictory #2 was among other Confederate writings, familiar with slave health (infant mortality and stunted growth) to tell that #1 is BS, and some readings by Benjamin Brawley made me aware of #5.

The the other two are a bit of a mix as A) some confederate scholars seem to offer a different interpretation of the U>S constitution on the matter of rights altogether and B) Just viewing the tariff ordeal as a whole it's alot of back and forth with probably alot of background.

Civil War history is just part of the larger controversial aspects of American history, so a straight forward diving in point isn't easy.

I'm reading my textbook (Worlds Together Worlds Apart Volume 1: Beginnings to the Fifteenth Century) that, at some point during the Song Dynasty, citizens of China thought their culture to be superior. The book also says these citizens referred to themselves as "Han." I've looked all over Google for more information on this statement, but all I can find is about the Han Dynasty, which happened anywhere between 1,000 to 1,400 years prior to the Song Dynasty. Does this self-given name have anything to do with the Han Dynasty? I looked up the very definition of the word "Han" but all I could find was " sorrow, spite, rancor, regret, resentment or grief, among many other attempts to explain a concept that has no English equivalent. "

​

I'm not simply looking for answers to my homework, because this doesn't even matter to my assignment. I'm honestly just curious as to why these people gave themselves a nickname and why it stuck so well that it made it into a history textbook. These little tiny history facts are what I live for.

Today marks 28 years since the end of the Battle of Vukovar. I would love to hear a unbiased explanation of what it meant and what went down

I'm curious what WW1 & WW2 historians think about Buchanan's argument that both World Wars were unnecessary? Most people believe that WW2 was necessary and justified. Is that right or wrong? Why or not? I'm not a professional historian, but I suspect he's full of nonsense.

How was the religion of the Spartans different from that of the Athenians, for instance? And how were they different from the beliefs of those living in colonies?

Any information would be great, but especially that relating to the role of priests/priestesses as well as how different were religious sites and temples depending on the region.

Sources and further reading much appreciated, both primary and secondary.

Broadly, I’m interested in learning what we actually know about Gladio (meant broadly here and not just about Italy) operations across Europe, especially beyond the simple existence of stay-behind groups.

Obviously, there are some serious issues with Daniele Ganser’s book on the topic which we don’t really seem able to answer, given the lack of access to the files of Western (and especially American) secret service files. The fact that the broader point he’s making, namely the existence of a strategy of tension in all of Europe coordinated by NATO and Western intelligence services carried out by fascists and their ilk, relies on accepting a fake document, seems damning. And there is no question that the far left (sometimes with the help of e.g. the Stasi) was carrying out terrorist attacks in Europe at the same time, which makes the Gladio narrative look like a conspiracy theory aimed at making both sides equal.

But the broader context doesn’t make it seem ridiculous. The USA was clearly willing to meddle in internal European politics, having dumped millions into the 1948 Italian elections to oppose the PCI. Operation Condor in South America, which had direct links to P2 in Italy, was extremely similar to the allegations made by Ganser about what was happening in Europe. Multiple people involved claimed that Ganser’s basic assumption about the strategy of tension was correct, like Vincenzo Vinciguerra. The Ziverbey Villa tortures also seems like a confirmation that Gladio operations were directed at undesirable political groups and not just creating stay-behind cells in case of a Soviet invasion. The CIA is confirmed to have done at least one false flag it blamed on communists during the 1953 Iranian Coup. Operation Northwoods proposed something similar, though not identical, to the strategy of tension in the US, and was approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff (if not the president). The stay-behind units were confirmed as real in a number of countries, even in neutral Switzerland and Austria.

I don’t really find it plausible that the much more conspiratorial things—like a fascist international funded by the heroin trade and run out of NATO headquarters for multiple decades—is real. But it doesn’t seem too farfetched that arming former nazis, fascists, and other people in the radical right with weapons could have resulted in terrorism, and that intelligence organizations who armed them were willing to turn a blind eye.

So what do historians, aside from Ganser, think about Gladio? Is it just unclear, and we are stuck waiting for something akin to the Stasi archives being opened for proof either way? Is it all a fantastic story ripped straight from a Bond movie, with no meaningful proof? Are there some actual instances that we know are real, which don’t require a wink and a nod to believe in? Should I put down my cup of kool-aid?!

Thanks in advance for any and all answers!

I have heard that things like meditation and koans weren't common among lay people in the countries where Buddhism is historically big. How did practices associated with monks and ascetics spread to ordinary lay people and seekers in the United States

I know women weren't considered to have professions to the same degree as men and were socially 'attached' to either their husbands or fathers. But at the same time I don't know anyone with the word "daughter" in their last name like "Johnsdaughter" or something, though I believe Iceland/Scandinavia does this with a "-dottir" suffix. So I wondered if there was a disparity in the naming conventions by gender.

What are the scholarly interpretations of the great purges , of its origins, purpose , and how it was carried out? What is the consensus of how Involved Stalin was , and whether the purges were directed from the top down , or more from the bottom up?

Basically what the title says — how did people who wanted to fight back go about joining the resistance movement (I understand how the Parisian communists ended up creating their resistance movement, so my question is more focused on those who didn’t support communism), and what would someone’s life be like once they joined up? How often would they meet, what was the leadership infrastructure like, what things would they be doing to disrupt/fight back, etc.

Also — once the war was over, what impact did being in the Résistance have on people’s lives? For example: did their involvement become public knowledge, and how common was it for people to pretend that they were involved when they weren’t? And were there any attempts to keep the network active in peacetime (e.g. as a political party, even a criminal organization, etc.)?

Thanks in advance for your answers!

What exactly was "Euroslerosis"? How was it dealt with? Who were the key political figures involved in this? I actually have to write a 15 page essay about this for uni, and I've read different sources on the Internet but I still can't seem to comprehend this subject. I would immensely appreciate books, chapters, article, etc recommendations. I apologise for any grammar mistakes as English is not my first language!

I know that Rousseau's theory did play a big role in the French Revolution and the ideology behind the revolution, but I'm having a hard time finding instances where his theory can be explicitly reflected (if that makes sense) ??

Also, I was wondering how interpretations of his social contract theory changed and what were the justifications as the French Revolution became more radical, especially the transitions from a constitutional monarchy to a republic to the Reign of Terror