Hello there, I was curious about India nd it's relationship with Great Britain or the British Empire in the respect. Occasionally, I'd see Indian paramilitaries or Indian soldiers fighting under the British Flag or British Imperial Flag. The 2nd Great War included more then a 1 million Indian's *volunteering*. I wanted to ask, did the British Indians fight of the British Empire out of loyalty to the Crown or was it something else? I mean, those are quite a lot of Indians fighting for the British Empire. . . so what was it? Loyalty or was it an obligation/Ordered to do it?.

​

Thanks for your time.

I don't have a name for this phenomenon but its undeniable. In many other cultures, bright, multi-colored, and "dazzling" patternwork is entirely commonplace throughout history. However, in western judeo-christian cultures, this is basically shunned, and nowadays almost exclusive to products tailored for pre-bubescent children (toys, television programs) and in a few token sub/counter-cultures (e.g. LGBTQ & ravers).

That said, I feel like this didn't really exist prior to the late 80s or 90s. If you look at die-cast or tin toys of the mid-century their color pallets rarely diverged from adult-oriented products.

How and when did this trend begin? I have a feeling it has something to do with the 1950s proliferation of "nurseries" as a room in a house where babies are reared, and the explosion of related products. Maybe Sherwin-Williams and advertisers are to blame?

Or another, similar hemorrhagic fever.

I'm currently reading "The Hot Zone," and the author hints at the idea that the Black Death could have been an Ebola-like virus, instead of the bubonic plague as we traditionally understand. I was intrigued by this idea, so I looked into it, and it looks like there are some recent articles that support the idea. They mainly site evidence like the speed of the spread of the plague, and the lack of reports of a die-off in rat populations at the time of the Black Death.

Is this an idea that has much mainstream support or research to support it? Is there any idea as to how a tropical disease like Ebola could have found it's way to Europe at that time?

Jacques Gernet writes that during the Song dynasty (960-1279), the robes of men and women fastened on different sides, with female clothing fastening on the wearer's left side, and male clothing on the right. Even today in military uniforms for instance, the direction in which the front of tunics/dress shirts is fastened is still opposing for men and women. Why is there a distinction? When did it first show up?

Like the equivalent of a fancy car today.

Cross posting since I didn't get any responses...

So I get that the period was incredibly short, but I'm having a hard time understanding how the, say, 50 years before 1865 weren't equally "wild" and lawless, particularly considering how many new territories/states were admitted to the Union.

The Union by 1865 had already moved quite far westward, in other words, and the beginnings of all those previous settlements certainly existed in lawlessness and strife. I imagine thievery, robbery, etc. as well.

Are there qualitative/objective qualities about the "wild west" that really stand out as separate from previous ongoing trends toward westward expansion? The only thing that comes to mind for me is the gold boom, as we often associate wild west tales with gold prospecting. But I'm at a loss, when I imagine the American west, for why the end of the Civil War seems to mark this different epoch, when nothing from my studies stands out as being that different in terms of westward expansion behaviors.

I was just listening to a podcast about the various theories on how Tutankhamen died, and the fighting between the Egyptians and the Hittites in that time period, which apparently ended (for the time being) with the “Silver Treaty”. The podcaster talked about how this treaty was written on silver tablets and then copied onto baser materials, but he never mentions the language.

At this time in the ancient world, were such treaties often written in the language of one side or the other, both languages, or some other lingua franca? Looking at pictures, the copies of the silver treaty appear to be written in hieroglyphics and cuneiform, so I’m assuming it’s both languages, but just how common would it have been for an Egyptian to know Hittite and vice-versa?

[deleted]

Why was it Christianity and not Judaism or Zoroastrism?

I've been looking for timeline programs and haven't found many that really satisfy me. Most of them restrict you to powerpoint-like slides or don't allow for very complex date or period indication. I'm currently using time graphics, but it's only effective if you pay for, what I find to be, an expensive subscription. I'd love to hear what professional historians use to create their digital timelines!

I initially thought it was a hard historical fact that the Armenian genocide did constitute a genocide, but on my exam paper this year one of the questions was along the lines of "Was the the death of the Armenians a byproduct of wartime conditions or a genocide?" I can't remember the exact wording, but the question was effectively whether or not the Armenian genocide was really a genocide.

To me it felt innapropriate, since the question is almost inviting students to engage in genocide denial. But could a strong historical argument be made that it wasn't a genocide?

I'm looking for a bday present for my mum.

Ideally it would be a perfect cross between informative and engaging.

I was reading a history of printing in the colonies, and there were a couple of accounts where after the death of their husbands their widows took over the printing press and resumed services - but were women in general able to practice a trade in the colonies? Were there any laws or social conventions preventing them from doing so?

I've been watching The Next Kingdom on Netflix which partially inspired this question.

I downloaded two books on place-names from the Internet Archive, and for some of the entries they either postulate hypothetical "X of name here "or "Old English word similar to name. "

Place-name books and websites are the sources I'm using.

Would a University of Nottingham guide on place-names be a tertiary, not secondary source?

How can we know, based on historical records, who these people were, and who would they have been, if not major chieftains or warriors?

For example, Pendeford in South Staffordshire, is probably named for King Penda of Mercia.

However, in one book I read, Blllinge, in Merseyside [Lancashire at the time the book was written] was said to be "place of Billa or Bulla's people", from Old English personal name + -ingas "people of", but another source said it was Old English bil(l)ing "a sharp hill, steep ridge."

I've been trying to understand a bit more about the Anglo-Saxons using books from my local library, and this lead onto place-names as well.

My basic questions were - how would I assess the secondary sources and their reliability, and more importantly, is it common to postulate people in history, and finally, apart from major kings and chieftains, what sort of status would the people whose names are found in towns be - for example Padda, whose name is found in Paddington, London and Padiham, Lancashire.

In general how often have historians postulated people that may or may not exist - am I wrong, or did Romans and Greeks do this as well?

Finally, assessing sources for reliability even though they're secondary - what English place-name books are considered as reliable sources by historians? [since this is an area of history i've started to get into].

I would be interested to know, especially from historical experts who know more about this than me.

I understand it's a game, but it is based around the 1895-1910 wild west (or end of) era.

Was it as easy to get away with murder in real life as it is in the game? For example, I'm in the woods right now and just shot a guy who was passing by on a horse (in game). It's night time and nobody is around so I got away with it. Was it that easy in real life back then?

I am planning a trip to Egypt later this year, and I want to brush up on my Egyptian history prior to my trip! I would love a comprehensive look that covers - well, everything. I'm interested in all of it! I'm not sure whether that exists, and I'm certainly open to reading multiple books, but hoped you could point me in the right direction. Thanks in advance!

I'd assume there'd be blood, remains, vomit, and other stuff inside. But aside from it's physical condition, do they return across the channel or something?

Hello,

I see everywhere that the Berlin Wall was built in one night but I find it very weird considering the height and the length of wall. Can someone explain me how it was built so fast?

I've sometimes seen archaeologists or some fringe historians state that many non-white groups of people came and settled in SA before Europeans did (mainly Columbus, but they dismiss the Vikings landing here too).

Searching online leads to a lot of obvious forgery and uncompeling unconvincing information.

But there was an anthropologist professor on radio this morning saying that Europeans re-wrote history and that black people were discovered in SA by colonialists but they never wanted admit the black man made here before them.

I'd like to know what is the real truth. I tend to always side with the scientific establishment but I'm willing to be open.

It'd be hard to be a prominent nationalist if you wouldn't have a lot of knowledge about your nation's history. Hitler was from a common family. Did his family teach him history? Did he go to school? Did he learn this by studying art as he wanted to be an artist?