I knew next to nothing about this war until very recently but I believe its relevant to the world today. The global politics at play during this war seem particularly intricate and, to me, counter-intuitive. It seems surprising that the soviets didn't encourage peace between these nations as they could both be allies against the US, yet they supported Iraq exclusively? The Reasoning for US support for Iraq at the time seems obvious, however in hindsight with what eventually happened in Iraq with the toppling of Saddam, bewildering. The Iran-Contra scandal adds yet another layer of confusion for me.

It almost seems like the two superpowers at the time were happy with that part of the world was in complete chaos.

According to many historians, the Bronze age collapse was partly caused by the invasion of the so-called Sea People, who came from the Agean sea and ravaged the very powerful Egyptian and Hittite civilizations thanks to their iron weapons, whereas their opponents only used bronze. But iron requires advanced heating technology to be separated form iron ore. How come Egypt or the Hittites, who most likely had more means, didn't develop iron technology first?

Like, as a knight, were you supposed to mercy kill or it was just out of good heart?

However, the dictionary definition of Triumphalism is "excessive exultation over one's success or achievements (used especially in a political context)". So, is the term "Triumphalism" criticizing historians (like Gaddis I suppose?) who are biased towards USA and think that Reagan brought the USSR down with his strategies and ended the Cold War?

Also, I am guessing that the differing viewpoint to Triumphalism would be about blaming Gorbachev's reforms as the cause of the fall of USSR instead?

A few weeks ago I came to the realisation that I had only really explored the history of Chernobyl with the wikipedia article. So just before the HBO Chernobyl had started I picked up my first book on the subject but unfortunately it turned out to be more of a personal history of visiting the site rather than a truly detailed history of the disaster. Now after watching the new HBO docu-drama, I'm eager to learn more.

Does anyone have a comprehensive reading list dealing with such issues as: -The event itself. -The trials following the disaster -The Soviet nuclear industry in general -the health affects of the victims and survivors -The current status of the site -the design of the new shell over the sarcophagus.

It's a long list so I thank you in advance for taking the time to reply.

I’d like to get my boyfriend a present for his upcoming birthday that relates to his passion for East Asian History. It’s hard to find anything (or anyone) specifically interested in East Asian history and was wondering if I could reach out to other history buffs for help. He particularly loves Chinese and Korean history, King Sejong, Joseon Scholars and early East Asian Buddhism.

I realize that books are generally a good gift but it’s very difficult to find them as he has the ones he wants from Amazon and also the older rare ones we pick up from university book sales. He’s told me that he’s interested in East Asian Journals from universities but I’m not even sure how to go about that...

Not sure if anyone here has seen marvel’s agent carter, but for those who have, you probably know Peggy carter moves into an all women’s building, which is like a building for working adult women and no men are allowed past the first floor (or something like that). I was just wondering, did these buildings actually exist in America in the 50’s? Or is this just something made up for the show? Thanks for anyone who can answer

There's a thread from someone I follow on twitter talking about how tumblr (being itself) is outraged and calling green face paint anti-Semitic, when it was more a way to depict paleness in black and white media. There are a few comments saying that the idea about witches being an anti-Semitic depiction is also wrong.

I was taught in high school that it was a form of anti-Semitic imagery (oddly enough in English class while talking about Shakespeare) and that things like the broom came from Jews being more "cleanly" during things like the black plague and not getting as sick. I haven't been able to find anything about it in the FAQ list here, nor when I poked around the internet.

How did that imagery actually come about? Is it based in antisemitism or other forms of prejudice?

I have read at least five books on this subject and they all just skip right over this. They all start with how tensions were high and how the quartering act made most Charlestonians mad and there was a British appointed governor... and then suddenly the war has started and the British are trying to invade Charleston, being successfully repelled by the Rebels (and the palmetto logs) of Fort Sumter. It's like I'm getting an answer from someone on Seinfeld! They just yada yada yada'd the most important part! Were the soldiers driven out by torch-wielding mobs? Were tensions so high the British just left? I believe the governor snuck out of the city, which suggests there was some unrest. I've just never understood why the British would have given up this strategic port in the first place if they already had so many troops there.

It is generally the rule that the people who suffer conquest get influenced by the superiority of their conquerors and therefore see many of their individuals attracted to the culture and religion of the powers that defeated them.

But in this case, the victors are the ones who are influenced with the religion of the defeated. Berke actually made most of the famous golden horde convert to Islam officially and vowed to defeat Hulagu for the sack of Baghdad. What made him become such a devout Muslim with more allegiance to other Muslims than to his own Mongol people? as evident by reading the following declaration by Berke himself :

"He (Hulagu) has sacked all the cities of the Muslims, and has brought about the death of the Caliph. With the help of God I will call him to account for so much innocent blood."

I can't seem to find any information other than their name. Apparently they existed between the Idrisid dynasty and the Almoravid dynasty.

This is a rather odd question but how come during both the Phalanx period and later the Pike and shot era there wasn’t a strategy of having soldiers trained to destroy pikes, either by being incredibly well armored and using that to just run in and pull the pike away, or using a weapon to simply chop the tip off. I know that some Phalanx formations were designed so that other pike users could stab to the sides of them but how in the blazes would that work again say a shield wall manned with people with either swords or axes, better yet how come Pole-arms such as poleaxes weren’t use to dismantle them, after all with a poleaxe you could cut the tip off the pike but still not be in stabbing distance for them?