The story holds that Caliph al-Muizz al-Muizz concerted to Christianity, was baptized at the church of Saint Mercurius in Cairo in a baptismal font that continues to exist to this day, and which known today as the "Sultan's Baptistry", abdicated the throne in favor of his son, and spent the rest of his life in a monastery.

This is a topic that has long been bothering me, I learned about the history of the migrations and consequent establishment of kingdoms in former Roman territories . However, I wanted to ask how they were able to take control of the population so quickly. Let's take the Ostrogoths for example, a group of people that spoke a Germanic language (I mean the only written sources of Gothic stem from the Italy region ), took over Italy,the core of the Latin world. Which leads to my second question, how was the life for the Germanic and the "indigenous groups" at the time? I just can't wrap my head around how that worked.

I know that legions were as much an engineering force as they were a military force, but what did that actually look like on a day to day basis? When building a road to press into distant territory, how many men were needed, and how much time? What tools and resources were needed? How many men with actual engineering education were needed in comparison to the men doing the physical labor? What is the most important thing to understand about legion engineering?

I feel like lever actioms shoot faster and carry more bullets than the Springfields. Winchester was also a pretty big company (I think)

Wanted to know this.

In the game Medieval Total War 2 the Moors (the games amalgamation of the Almohads and other Berber muslim factions who occupy North Africa and southern Iberia) have a unit of christian knights called the Christian Guard. Their in game description is somewhat vague:

“Being overthrown by their own palace guard is a risk faced by many rulers, and one way to prevent this is to hire guards from outside of their own cultures, who cannot hope to wield power themselves. Thus the Sultans of the Moors hire Christian Knights to protect them. Their prowess in battle is an added bonus."

I've tried searching for the Christian Guard online but little information outside of the game comes up. Was it actually common for leaders of the Almohads (or other Berber muslim factions) to hire christian knights as bodyguards? Are there any historical examples of this occurring?

what was the prominent art style pre-1776 USA especially leading up to declaring independence?

I've been wondering whether people looked at horses originally as a transportation method or if that idea came about after horses were domesticated for food or some other purpose. Are there any signs indicating which was the case?

hi im trying to write a "book" for the first time and an important part of it is how the main character get his starting money

the character originally lives in a fishing town (in New Hampshire) and my thought was that his mother (dead) would have found a pearl and put it in a cheap necklace I want him to get at least 100 dollars (yes I know that's a lot) but some less would be fine I've been searching for like 20 minutes and I can't find any pricing on pearls around that time can someone please help me find a reasonable size/price for the pearl or should I find some other way for him to get money at first

p.s. its a historical fiction about aliens causing world war 1 (yes it does sound dumb)

[deleted]

After reading about the theme system and its development I have a feeling, that strategoi basically resembled feudal lords, having both civil and military authority over their themes.

Why did iron weaponry appear right after the bronze age collapse? Apologies if this is wrong but didn't Iron weapons appear about a century after the bronze age collapse why non during the Bronze age when warfare was reasonably prelevant and large empires had the resources to study technology why not in the classical period when empires became large again?
My understanding is technology requires large empires to put forth investment to move forward not complete anarchy.

My vague sense of the period is that socio-cultural restraints were generally stronger on upper class women who were expected to be exemplars of their sex, so I'm certainly more interested in that slice, although I don't want to cut out any interesting angles that this question might cover within the lower segments of society.

My impression also is that the most easy way to have "independence" was to be a widow, probably with a young son who wasn't able to control his fortune himself. To be sure I'm also not cutting out them (although open to correction if I'm wrong there), but what I'm really interested is in those who aren't granted it by unfortunate (or fortunate?) circumstance. That is to say, a young woman raised in a good family, makes a fairly average marriage, and begins motherhood, or, of course, a woman from a good family who remains unmarried yet wants to do more than join a nunnery, or be an old maid in her father's house.

What avenues were available to women such as these to maintain a sense of self and control within the expectations of the society she lived in?

I've taken two history courses so far. One professor said they knew immediately because they recognized the captives he brought weren't Indians that they've traded with. The other said it took them about 10-15 years to realize they weren't Indians.

I was just curious about which it was and I wanted some expansion on it. Were King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella able to quickly recognize Columbus discovered a new society and/or land? Did this affect their decisions on creating more expeditions West?

If it took them a while, why did it take them so long? Weren't their cultures completely different?

If they did know immediately, how come Native Americans were consistently called "Indians" still?

Resources are greatly appreciated but not necessary.

As the second Kaiser of the unified German Empire, Frederick is said to have been a great admirer of the British system and wanted to bring some form of constitutional monarchy to Germany. He also reportedly planned on reigning as consorts with his British wife, Victoria (eldest daughter of Queen Victoria.)

There's also plenty of anecdotes around him attending Synagogues in a show of solidarity with Germany's Jewish community as well as pledging to never engage in war should he be Emperor despite his own success during the wars with Austria and France. It is thus popularly speculated that he might have been able to avoid the First World War (and by extension the Second) had he reigned for longer.

Frederick was a heavy smoker and died of throat cancer just 99 days into his reign. His final words are alleged to have been:

"What's happening to me? I must get well again; I have so much to do!"

But how much of this reputation is deserved? His father Wilhelm I and his son Wilhelm II were very conservative. Further, the German Empire itself was a conservative coalition of Kingdoms, Principalities and Duchies corralled by arch conservative Otto Von Bismark. Was he a reformer as much as these stories suggest? Or is this merely a seductive "what-if" given what happened to Germany during the 20th Century? If he was planning on reforms, was resistance to Frederick planned? Were the conservative powers of Germany taking steps to protect the Imperial system as well as their personal rights and privileges should Frederick attempt to enact reform?

I noticed that the 9th and 10th Cavalry Regiments were both formed in or around 1866 which is roughly when Red Cloud's War started. However, Red Cloud's War was fought mostly in Wyoming and I can only find records of black soldiers fighting in the Texas theater of the Indian Wars. So did the buffalo soldiers not participate in Red Cloud's war and if so do we know why not? Considering that Red Cloud gave the US a run for their money you'd think the army would want as many capable soldiers fighting his coalition as possible.

Aztec mythology is full of blood and sacrifices and their religion was too. However, the hindu mythology also has some very violent aspects, Kali could easily be mistaken for a demon, Shiva is a god of destruction, but when we hear the stories from hindu people we realize that Kali is more terrifying than evil, and that Shiva's role is to destroy so that there can be rebirth.

So I wonder, how would the aztecs have told their myths?, how would they have explained their rituals?, how would that change our perception?

I'm reading a book and the author wrote: "And in the middle ages it was having your own laws, and not your own language, that meant international acknowledgement of a nation/people and it's statehood and for that reason it was not politically significant of what ethnicity the [rulers] were, [...]. The [old state] with it's legal heritage continued to exist."

I'm curious how accurate that is and if there are any nuances I ought to be aware of before accepting the statement at face value. I am also aware the modern concept of a nation didn't exist at the time, but I presume people still had a sense of ethnic belonging (i.e. Saxons, Normans, Franks, Germans).

​

For the record, the book isn't written in English and that was my own translation of the text. I also deliberately obscured what polity is being talked about because I'm interested more in the general principle than the specific example and I want to mitigate any potential nationalistic impulses. In so far as it matters, the relevant timeframe is Christian/Catholic Europe around the year 1000, give or take a century or two.

Seeing as how India was the main reason for controling Egypt, British intervention in Egyptian politics seems unnecessary.