I don’t mean going to train for combat in the military barracks or training for a martial art; I mean who were the first civilizations that had people deliberately going to “gymnasiums” to better their physique or to improve their strength?

Okay so What i really want to know how many names did the land right next to sinai have over centuries from canaan to israel to judea to syria palestina and palestine (ottoman/british) that’s all the names i can think of for that land so was there anymore names for

Also who were the original philistines or palestinians ?

I heard they were some invaders or pirates or something not sure (who used to inhabit a land between tel aviv and gaza today)

Because i am from the middleeast (not israeli )and keeping the fact that i can’t stand palestinians or israelis for that matter

But i wouldn’t go as far to say the palestinians would hijack an entire false identity until i found this

Zuheir mohsen part of the plo Said

“The Palestinian people do not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism. Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity exists only for tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan. James Dorsey, "Wij zijn alleen Palestijn om politieke reden", Trouw, 31 March 1977.”

But i really want to know the true history and identity of the land And how much of that lands history was distorted or changed from both sides to push their political agendas especially the Palestinians

The question is who are the Palestinians of today and who were the actual Palestinians of back then ?

Not sure if this is the right sub, but its the closest I could think of. If somebody holds both noble title (E.g. they're a baron or an earl or something) but they also are currently serving in the military and have an officer's rank (they're a Sargent or a captain or whatever) which title are they addressed by? Also has this changed historically, so is the answer the same for medieval England as it would be for modern day, and also does it vary by culture? I've been trying to figure this out for a while and keep coming up empty. Any thoughts?

I have the opportunity to teach a history of computers course in a computer science department. While I have always had an interest in the history of computation, and have read many popular books and articles on the topic, I am no historian (and can barely recall the history classes I took as a student).

I am pretty experienced teaching math and computer science, but not much beyond that. For instance, I don't think I've ever taught a courses where students had to submit a substantial written essay.

Do you have any advice for how I should run such a course? Are there any articles, or example courses, that you would recommend I check out?

Has there been any notable shifts in the image of Chiang over the decades?

Many years ago, I'm talking early 20th century, most soldiers didn't even fire their weapons. Or if they did, they would just aim over the heads of the enemies. They did it on purpose. British Army. World War I. The brigadier, he'd walk the line with a stick and he'd whack his men in order to get them to shoot. Even in World War II, in a firefight, only 15%, 20% of the men would pull the trigger. The fate of the world at stake and only 15% of them fired.

Now, what does that tell you? It tells me that that war would have been over a whole lot quicker had the military got its shit together. So we adapted. Better training. Better conditioning. Then comes the Vietnam War, and the shooting percentage goes up to 85. Lots of bullets flying. The kills were still low. Plus the guys who did get a kill, well, most of them came back all messed up in the head.

What are some examples of the kinds of foods that would have been eaten then? Would it have been closer to modern Greek or Egyptian cuisine, or something else?

I think I’ve heard that battles of yore were decided by onlooking parties who made a subjective assessment of quality I guess. This seems nonsensical though because the winner should be the one who gains a strategic advantage. Am I imagining having read this or is it true, and if it’s true, can you please elaborate?

Thanks folks!

My deceased great grandmother, an Italian immigrant to the US, was surprised that pizza was becoming a big thing here later in her life. She'd lived through a childhood of poverty in northern Italy, as well as the great depression in the US. In both situations, pizza and polenta were simply satisfying foods that could be made extremely cheaply.

When she'd moved here, Italians often faced discrimination, and, for instance, my grandfather (on the other side) refused to eat Italian food and otherwise looked down on Italians.

When I was growing up in the 80s, pizza was already a big thing. There were chain restaurants like Pizza Hut serving up the stuff, as well as an incredible amount of mom-and-pop stores, not to mention the big-name restaurants in places like New Haven.

But what got the nation from looking down on Pizza to having it be a cornerstone of "American Cuisine." that everyone loved?

In my history class today my professor mentioned that there is a theory where Marco never actually traveled. This being due to his descriptions and the difficulty and tracking his itinerary.

To further explain my question: I have seen the movies where a gentleman in a uniform of a specific branch of the armed services comes up to a house. He delivers the notification to the family of the deceased in a telegram. Is this depiction accurate? We’re these men (were they only men) trained in grieving? Were they chaplains?
Was this method also traditionally used in Europe as well? With all the devastation from bombing etc, it must have been difficult.

Most of us know a bit about the Show Trials, forced confessions and interrogative techniques used by the KGB and related organizations, but there's less knowledge about what the justice system looked like for ordinary, nonpolitical suspects. How did the court system look for ordinary crimes?

Is there a presumption of innocence? Do I have a right to an attorney, and if so, what kinds of things does my attorney do to defend me? Do I have a right to face my accusers?

When i read about Rhodesian and South Africa i get the impression that Rhodesia was significantly more restricted when it came to international relations than South Africa. Is that correct? In that case, why? They seem quite similar at that time.

The british long bow was apparently very effective during medieval England and it got me thinking, if they focused on archery so much why hadn't mounted archery every 'catch on' in any way in England?

It seems reasonable to assume that there has to be significant truth to the idea of the USA intentionally exploiting South American countries, considering how many people believe it, but I'm completely ignorant about the history.

What did the USA do to earn such a reputation? Was it simply easy to use the USA as a scapegoat, or was the CIA really orchestrating the downfall of governments simply for being socialist?

When I look at those top-down tactical battle diagrams/maps, you can see clearly depicted when a big flanking manoeuvre is in play. There are arrows, and it's annotated etc.

My question is: other than these big deliberate, tactical moves, was there an expected ongoing attempt to micro-flank whenever any fairly evenly matched front line rows came into contact? So if two evenly sized and arrayed phalanx formations were going at each other, would the soldiers on either corner essentially always be trying to get in round the side of the other? Or would they fight, more like the rest, head-on, leaving their flanks mostly unguarded?

I understand that the clause allowed for states to create hundreds of Petty crimes which resulted in Nearly 3500 people dying in Texas through its convict leasing program. As well as modern California saving upwards of $50million by leasing convicts as firefighters. It seems to me that without this clause states would not be so willing to arrest individuals as the cost would not be offset by various leasing programs.