The film Spartacus (1960) was written by Dalton Trumbo while he was blacklisted and used classical history to make allusions to HUAC. But it also had a lot of gay subtext. Did blacklisted authors feel a kinship to homosexual oppression? Was there a ‘pink scare’? Was homosexuality linked to communism in public discourses?

This is a genuine question. Not meant to spend any propaganda or hatred.

People say that all Muslim rulers were fervently against Hindus and tortured them. They mass converted Hindus to Islam and destroyed temples.

How much thuth to it?

I understand that all of the Muslim rulers could not have been equally abusive to Hindus. But were all of them, up to some degree?

Who were the most abusive ones and who were the least?

Where can I learn more? (Suggest books, documentaries, articles etc.)

Hello there. I'm looking for a non-fiction book about Native Americans. I'm not American myself and I don't know a lot about American history, so I'm looking for a book that isn't intimidating for someone like me to pick up, and is engaging enough for me to finish. I'm more interested in:

1. their culture, tradition and way of living
2. the events that led to their fall (the wars the European colonists waged against them)

If you could recommend a book that covers both aspects, that would be ideal!

[deleted]

Hi everybody! For a schoolproject I am writing a short report about the food that was sold at the Thermopolia in ancient Rome. Do you have any helpful information or sources on this subject? Thanks in advance!

Having just come back from a trip in Rome, I realised the scale of the Roman Empire at its height, and just how much they managed to accomplish, especially architecturally.

What was it like for Medieval Italians living in the shadow of these massive Roman structures (the Colosseum, the Pantheon etc), knowing that they could never hope to replicate such achievements in their lifetime?

Did they have an understanding of what the Roman Empire was? Did they feel like they were the descendants of the Romans or did they view it as a separate entity?

Rather than Constantine iii joining with his enemy Honorius, why didn't he side with Alaric? If Constantine's forces were enough to protect Honorius from the visigoths, surely they would have made an unstoppable force had they worked together? Alaric had no wish to become Emperor as far as we know and Constantine would have been sole Western Roman Emperor once they had removed Honorius from power. Constantine would have likely been far more reasonable with Alaric than Honorius ever was, especially since Honorius ambushed Alaric when he was on his way to make peace. Both leaders had been raised in the Roman way of life so there was opportunity for an alliance. Stilicho was no longer a threat and Honorius had no powerful military force in Ravenna protecting him. Gerontius would also not betray Constantine for siding with Honorius so the rebellion wouldnt have fallen. Constans ii would also still be alive in this scenario to continue to be King of Britain or even Co Western Emperor with his father. If Constans ii had returned to England, it would have meant the legends of King Arthur, if there's any truth to them, would never have happened. Alaric may have also not died of fever or malaria in this scenario.

Surely the two great men could have completely toppled the Roman Empire? Perhaps formed some sort of pincer move on Ravenna? So what held them both back from working together? Was Constantine really so desperate to be Emperor that he'd risk a mutiny just to be Co Western Emperor rather than working with Alaric to become sole Western Emperor?

Hi All,

I am a naval architect/marine engineer (I design ships for a living) with a strong interest in icebreaker design. Additionally, I used to work in the Great Lakes region of the United States, which has a proud history of using icebreakers to extend the shipping season for iron, coal, and other products on the Great Lakes, which freeze over entirely from mid-December to Mid-March or April, depending on the year.

Without a doubt, the most famous Great Lakes icebreaker was the USCGC "Mackinaw" (WAGB-83, not its successor the WLBB-30), which was purpose built in 1943-1944 to break ice on the Great Lakes. It's well known in the Great Lakes region that the reason for the construction of the Mackinaw was to ensure continuous shipments of iron ore from the Mesabi Range of Minnesota and the shipments of native copper from the Upper Peninsula of Michigan during wartime. On the whole, the USCGC Mackinaw was a critical piece of infrastructure that ensured US Steel Mills and US copper refineries would keep running at maximum production throughout WWII.

Apologies for the long introduction, but that context is necessary to introduce my main question: if Germany's wartime steel industry was also reliant on distant shipments of iron ore from over oft-frozen seas like the US (in Germany's case, shipments coming primarily from Sweden's iron ore mines at the northern end of the gulf of Bothnia of the Baltic Sea, which freezes over from December to April), then why didn't Germany build any icebreakers like the United States? For the most part, Germany's winter iron ore shipments had to come down the coast of Norway (which does not freeze over in winter), which resulted in the loss of many German ships to frequent and ferocious Allied naval attacks.

I would be very appreciative of any insight or literature about this question from real historians. And while I am not a historian myself by any means, my main theory about this question is that it is a chicken-and-egg situation: Germany didn't consider using icebreakers, the lack of which hampered Germany's steel production significantly, so the US learned from Germany's mistakes and decided to protect their iron ore shipping by building icebreakers. I would be very appreciative if anyone with an interest in historical naval architecture or wartime logistics concerns could weigh in on this question.

In 1940, Nazi Germany signed the Tripartite Act with Italy and Japan forming the Axis alliance. For Operation Barbarossa/Germany invasion of Russia, why then did Japan not take part as they literally shared a border with Russia at this time? One can assume that Russia fighting a two front war wouldve been unable to supply so many Siberian divisions to the Eastern Front to keep the Wehrmacht from advancing and would have spelled certain doom for Russia?

According to Wikipedia, Jews in Poland-Lithuania wore black żupans, and I read somewhere else that supposedly Jews wore only black, or at least tended to wear a lot of black. Are either of these true? (I’d also like to ask follow-up questions about attire in Poland-Lithuania, if that is fine; I really like this period of Polish history) I also read on TV Tropes that supposedly medieval Jews thought that expressing gratitude would bring them bad luck, which is part of why Jews complaining is a stereotype (though I’d never heard about the stereotype before; apparently it’s more popular as an in-joke among Jews themselves). Is there any validity to this claim?

I read that in the 90s, Japan was offering up to 3000 USD to Japanese-Brazilian immigrants to leave the country. Considering these people were literally ethnic Japanese themselves, yet still seemingly unwelcome, I'm wondering why Japan has retained its xenophobia and closed off nature, whereas Germany (which was a literal Nazi state only 75 years ago) did a total 180 and nowadays has the highest percentage of migrants, relative to native population, in the world

Apparently there had been contact between Europeans and Virginia natives decades before the founding of Jamestown, and a native convert and interpreter, Don Luis, is speculated to have been related to the Powhatan chiefs Wahunsonacock and Opechancanough.

How much knowledge would they have really had of Europeans, and could this have informed how the Powhatan dealt with the Virginia colonists?

When did these policies begin? Are they still in place? How do they handle soldiers, who over a long career, may end up with four (or more) children while serving?

In Herodotus histories, in his account of Solons visit to Croesus, he writes, “God is envious of human prosperity... It is Gods way... God tolerates.” Who is this singular god? As far as I’m aware the ancient Greeks were polytheistic, yet this clearly implies monotheism. Is this just a translation thing, or was there a genuine worship of a single god?

In the early 20th century it was effectively split between Polish, Jewish, and Ukrainian. Was this demographic divide consistent with eastern Galicia of 1600? I'm assuming the number of Jews and Poles was far higher in the 20th century? Why did they move to this area?

In the Iliad, Achilles never got much of an introduction, just “boom, here he is”, meaning he was well known before the Iliad, but for what?

I have seen a post in the about Japanese historic combat. The answers always mentioned some sort of archery being prevalent (before the late Sengoku period when muskets were used instead). So it seems reasonable to me that armies would counter archers with shields, seeing as they picked up spears against cavalry.

Did they just not have good enough materials to make a shield that could block arrows effectively or was it another reason?

Gregory XI (Pierre Roger de Beaufort) was the last. Does it all come down to the Avignon papacy, which ended two years earlier? Is Rome wary of French Catholics, even after almost 650 years?

I get that she was the descendant of an older brother, but her father was never king and they hadn’t exhausted the children of George III (which I’d always figured they had until I fell down a Wikipedia rabbit hole just now. ) so did being the descendant of an older sibling trump male preference primogeniture or were the 3 remaining sons of G3 disqualified for other reasons (like marrying Catholics or something)

In my book, Napoleon (whose surname is Bonaparte) is referred to as Buonaparte. There is a scene in the book where a diplomat says they should remove the u and call it Bonaparte, but that joke couldn't have gone so far that Wikipedia refers to him as Bonaparte. So, here are my two questions, how did the name Bonaparte be used, and why was he referred to as Buonaparte?