Considering how different they were ideologically, with the southern Dems being conservative segregationists while the Northerners being more liberal anti-segregationists. Was there any particularly policy that united them?

The reason for this post is Erwin Rommel and the common belief he was a good guy yet I've also heard he was a true follower of the reich so I'm genuinely interested, hence the title. Also why is Rommel perceived as such a good guy this day and age?

I thought of this question while rereading one of my favorite books, "A Canticle for Leibowitz" by Walter Miller. Before the start of the book, a nuclear war happens in the late 50s/early 60s. By the time of part one, in the 27th century, North America is in a state comparable to the Early Middle Ages. The Papacy has reestablished itself in the ruins of St Louis, renamed New Rome. The book does reference Catholic theology (Miller himself was a Catholic, and was inspired to write the novel by his involvement in the bombing of the abbey of Monte Cassino in WWII) such as the Pope mediating a dispute between the Dominicans and other holy orders on whether or not the Immaculate Conception also implied the Virgin Mary possessed preternatural gifts; however, Miller remains silent on how the 27th century Papacy claims apostolic succession from the first bishop of Rome (which itself is presumably destroyed in the the nuclear war), Saint Peter. This got me thinking: surely the Catholic Church had a plan for preservation of the succession should nuclear war break out in real life. If so, has the Church (or any of the other churches claiming apostolic succession such as the Eastern Orthodox or Anglican Churches) ever disclosed to outsiders their plans for preservation of the Church in general and the apostolic succession in particular? Or have they remained silent on the issue?

Tell me if I’m misinformed. I’ve been reading a wikipedia list of massacres in history out of messed up curiosity. It seems like Jewish groups from all around the world were always the target of a massacre at some point in a given era. If this is true, why? Did they just have a higher and more dispersed population?

I'm also curious, did those people mostly use those scales, like did the Ionian peoples' music use what we call the major scale? And if so, do we know why the Ionians and Phrygians, etc. ended up using those specific scales?

So in all realism, besides the natives and other American nationals moving West, were there Muslims moving out too? Too often, we hear about the Christian side of things and manifest destiny. But there had to have been Arabs, Indians, and other Asian communities, right?

So, as far as I know, basically everywhere the early Proto-Indo-Europeans and their early descendants went, their language eventually became adopted in the land they ruled. As far as I know, one of the the only places this didn’t happen was the Mittani state of northern Syria. Why didn’t the Mittani language persist?

I read a lot of old children's books growing up, and something I noticed in some of the kids books from the turn of the Twentieth Century is the trope of the weak, sickly child who just needs to get out in nature and roughhouse a little and then they're magically cured (see Klara in Heidi, Colin in The Secret Garden).

I'm curious about what anxieties and values this trope reflects — was increasing industrialization making Europeans anxious about raising children in polluted cities? Was this just wishful thinking about an easy cure for childhood illnesses? Was it a moralizing view that disabilities could be cured by circumstance and willpower? Or was it about romanticizing rural life as pure and healthy? Curious if any children's lit scholars out there have written about this!

I guess the Achaemenid and Median empires made Aramaic the official language because of Assyrian empire

Hi, I had some inspiration for writing a fantasy novella the other day that features an itinerant "knight" having to travel between village to village all over the kingdom. The problem is that, upon reflecting on it, I don't really know how people used to travel prior to carriages & automobiles. I mean, I have some idea that pack animals would be brought along and the knight probably wouldn't be wearing their armor at all times while travelling, but I want to try and write something a little more grounded/plausible. Hence the title, where I'm looking for any sort of book that looks at how people moved between places, preferably one that showcases the differences in travelling between the elite, the "middle class" who could afford a horse / pack animal, and those who had to travel on their own two feet.

Some of my naive questions that I would hope to have answered in this book are as follows:

• Just how far would people travel in a day? I know that this depends on the pace that they were trying to set, but let's assume a casual pace. How much quicker would people travel on horses? Would people ever "push" their horses into a gallop when travelling? Or is that just a good way to mistreat your horse? If you didn't have a horse, would you have to pull a cart of some kind?

• How was arms & armor transported while travelling? I know that while plate armour was actually more ergonomic than most people believe that it still wouldn't be worn all day while travelling. Would anything lighter be worn instead for longer-term wear? Like a mail shirt or gambeson? Were swords worn in sheathes while travelling or packed away in bags?

• How spaced apart were villages (I know this is going to vastly depend on the terrain in question) but could you usually make it from one to the other in a day's travel? Would people pitch tents in the night if they were stuck out in the woods? If the traveler stopped for the night in a foreign village on the way to their destination, would there actually be "inns" for them to stay in?

• Any and everything related to food. Were there specific kinds of food that were seen more as "travel rations"? I am picturing stuff like hard tack & jerky, something that stays preserved.

• All sorts of other things.

If anyone could recommend any good resources on learning more about this topic I would greatly appreciate it, thank you!

Turkey’s current presidential election is being dominated by the issue of refugees from the Middle East. It’s not uncommon for politicians make racist remarks about them and xenophobic attacks against Arabs (mostly Syrian and Iraqi) have been making the news more and more lately.

I understand that the specific question of Syrian refugees is a fairly recent one, given that the whole situation is barely over ten years old. Much can change in this small timeframe, but I imagine there’s a deeper issue rooted into this.

I don’t think I’m being unfair when I say Turkey owes a great deal to the Arab civilization; it was the Arabs who introduced them to their religion and many of their customs. Cross cultural contact between those populations was very intense for centuries and the Turks even used a variant of the Perso-Arabic script up until the 1920’s.

How come they feel contempt for a people who in many ways were deeply influential to Turkish culture? What are the reasons behind the anti-Arab sentiment that exists in Turkey today? Did it exist at all prior to the Republic, or indeed, the current refugee crisis? Was the feeling of kinship between those two peoples just never that strong?

Thanks in advance to everyone in this subredd!

The Turkish invasion and conquest in both the case of the Seljuks and Ottomans seems impressive. For a thousand years all these enemies like Persians, Arabs, Bulgars, Slavs, etc. couldn't bring down Byzantium but they seemed to just plow through them in the late Middle Ages. It started with Manzikert but really accelerated over the next century. And yes, I know the Crusader ordeal really hurt the Byzantines, but was that the main reason for their decline?

​

Did the Turks that conquered Byzantine land in Anatolia basically quickly take the inhabitants and Turkify them, and turn them on the Byzantines themselves over a few generations? From what I understand, Turks are still mostly the native Anatolians and the Central Asian Turks were a relatively smaller elite. So basically the armies that brought down the Balkans and Constantinople eventually were mostly composed of former Byzantines, or at least descendants of them?

As someone who has recently started to read Homage To Catalonia, from a historical perspective was Orwell's testimony of the POUM accurate or just rose tinted glasses? Was it democratic and could its economy/political system subsist without the war economy? How did Hitler react to the POUM having trotskyists embedded within it? Can Rojava and the Zapatistas be used as a modern analogue?

After a successful battle, a Spartan sent word to announce the victory. This announcement was considered a longer one (a few sentences maybe), and the Spartan received a response essentially telling him that less words would’ve sufficed.

Which battle was this in reference to? Which Spartans had this minor conversation? What is the wording of the conversation that took place?

I recognize this is probably going to vary massively depending on exactly which ship we are talking about, so perhaps we could get a multi part answer here.

1.) If you look at the classic ship of the line, such as Nelson's HMS Victory, you will find over 100 guns on her throughout three gun decks as well as smaller armaments on the main deck. The physical space alone for the gunpowder and cannonballs must have been massive. How many times could this ship, or one similar, probably do a full broadside before running dry?

2.) A smaller ship, but still very capable, the HMS Surprise as seen in the movie Master and Commander, has 28 guns. Same question as above really. Does the amount of ammunition scale down at a 1:1 ratio? or does a smaller ship with fewer guns carry more or less ammunition?

3.) much smaller this time: a privateer in a 4 or 6 gun sloop. Would privateers or lightly armored ships with few guns carry enough shot for a few "harassment" engagements, or would it also be able to sustain fire?

Additionally, was a unit of advisors formed to recruit soldiers from neighboring states, or were military members only to be born in Qin State? This documentary made me realize how little I know about Ancient China, so I'm hoping that some answers can point me in the best direction for solid, informative literature on ancient Chinese military structures and organization. Thank you!

Furthermore, why is he always depicted as a red, horned human? Where did these relatively cartoonish characteristics stem from?