Hello All Today I was at the Todaili temple in Nara Japan. I heard the monk Bodhisena travelled from India to dedicate it in the 752. How long did it take him? What means did he use? What was the preferred route?

Thanks

A

I know there's the Métis but they're less than 2% of Canada's population, and not only are Quebecois's whites but, according to a study I found online, have 2-3%. Compare Brazil which has a high mixed-race population and the white population has an average 33% of Native DNA on their mother's side.

In other words, did they consider themselves to be living through a Dark Age, as we consider it today?

A supplementary question: how would a modernisation theorist explain this “regression”?

I appreciate the desire for scholarly accuracy, but I’m willing to wager that there are many well-informed facts posted as responses that get deleted because the bibliography isn’t perfect. And for that matter, many of the accepted posts I see have one or two sources cited for paragraph upon paragraph of information. Where does plagiarism start and citation begin? Do you even know? Do you even review? Or does one or two book titles (existing or not) satisfy your desire for clerical observance?

Who asks a question here and doesn’t have enough thirst for knowledge to fact-check if sources aren’t provided?

Why do the moderators of this page feel like they’re cultivating an authoritative scholarly journal for people who will believe anything they read? No one who is interested in the actual truth will follow a sub called askhistorians.

Why not try this: instead of deleting responses without primary documents, encourage corrections and source provision in comments by historians.

I encounter thread after thread after thread that are completely barren when I try to read them. I refuse to believe that none of the responses have at least a glimpse of historical truth that I can then (gasp!) research on my own to discover more than I originally knew.

Sources: my brain, which is the size of a walnut, like a brontosaurus (Spielberg, et al., Jurassic park 1992)

So, I am not quite sure how phrase this, and I know about the invention of the Julian calendar, and future Gregorian reforms, but I was wondering when western civilization began numbering the years with the AD "age". Obviously people didn't just decide "now it's 0" when Christ was born, so when did they decide to keep track of years in that way? Before that, how did people keep track of years? Did they have their own year counts?

From what I understand, the economy of Mexico from the 16th to 19th centuries was mostly a system of isolated tenant farming not too different from what existed in Europe at this time. The tributary encomienda system seems quite similar to the stereotype of medieval feudalism.

So why did chattel slavery not come to Mexico in any great extent? This system was clearly incredibly profitable for certain white colonists, and in places like Cuba or the American South these slaveholders held complete power of politics and society. Because Spanish colonial authorities were so brutal to Mexico's indigenous people, I highly doubt that they saw the enslavement of black people as a specific evil.

Did slaveholders from other parts of the Spanish Empire ever attempt to import this economic system to Mexico? Was slavery banned? Why exactly did this economic system never take root?

So, I know that after World War 2, Japan was forced to become a pacifist country as part of some treaty to officially end the war (I think the Treaty of Versailles?) but Germany and Italy also fought on the Axis side, but they were allowed to keep their own military. And I forget what side Russia fought on in World War 2, but I think Stalin was leading, so it might’ve been against the Allied powers. But regardless, how come Japan was the only country that fought on the Axis side of the war that lost their military? Was it because of something did in World War 1? Or was it because of Pearl Harbor? Or was there another reason?

Basically that. Just trying to figure out why skirts are considered inherently ‘feminine’ and why it was important to keep it that way. So much so that women used to get in trouble for wearing pants.

From what I understand, even nearly 30 years after reunification, eastern Germany is still significantly poorer than the western half of the country. Has this always been the case throughout Germany’s history?

I know elephants have been used in war for centuries, as well as using them (and other exotic animals) for pageantry such as in the Coliseum under Roman Rule.

Where did empires like Persia or Rome source these elephants? Were they captured in the wild and then shipped? Did they have specific breeders to provide elephants in captivity? Were they a common sight to a regular citizen or cavalryman?

The information in both the Spanish and English Wikipedias is pretty inconsistent. I originally learned the Americas had stone age society. Then it seemed they may have been in the dawn of a Chalcolithic age without knowledge of smelting ores or casting but with cold smithing. Then I found out there were actual bronze axes and other tools already existing but still rare, and one Wikipedia article claiming there was a trading guild with connections between the Purepecha in West Mexico and Ecuador. It's hard to find sources online and Youtube without exaggerations and "Ancient Aliens" in the Andes type conspiracy theories.

Are the bronze axes on both continents legitimate, and is there any truth to the claim that the axes in Mexico prove a maritime connection to Peru? Can we estimate how close to a true bronze age civilization and inter-american exchange of animals and crops we were? Or is all this Ameri-Indian metallurgy just Ancient Aliens type pseudohistory trying to cast (pun intended) copper instruments as bronze?

A Roman equivalent, I suppose, of Edith Hamilton's 'Mythology'.

[deleted]

I am currently reading through “American Slavery: A Very Short Introduction” and in the opening chapter, where it covers the history of African slavery under Portugal and Europe, it states:

“As the Portuguese and other Europeans expanded their desire for slaves, they entered into arrangements with African rulers who allowed African traders to go inland to capture people whom they marched to the coast and traded with waiting Europeans ... Some African rulers negotiated with Europeans and imposed duties or taxes on the trade, made demands regarding the goods they wanted as payment, and benefitted from systems of gift-giving.”

The chapter then explains that the African communities at the time did not consider themselves united as a single group based on being from the sameness country or due to skin colour but that “their identities instead derived from being members of a specific village or an ethnic group. Therefore, they did not sustain a sense of unity with, or loyalty to, captives from other groups. In fact, people were generally captured in wars with other groups that increased in frequency as African traders obtained weapons from Europeans.”

Do we know which particular rulers or societies engaged in this part of the slave trade? Was one tribe more active in enslaving, or in being enslaved, than the others and did this increase or decrease as the centuries went by, including leading up to the time period of the American Revolution and the later periods of abolition?

EDIT: I screwed up royally by using the word “tribes” instead of societies, it just goes to show my ignorance and inexperience with the subject and I deeply apologise for the use of the term, I have amended the section above to include the correct word. Unfortunately I am unable to edit the title without deleting the post and reposting the question as a new one.

Sure there is a better way to form this question but couldn't find it. I'm trying to educate my self better on the slave trade but I want a look closer to the people being captured than those capturing (though I know sometimes that is the same).

So, reading about the Cold War era I got to the point of nuclear powers, and was surprised to see that Israel never admitted up until today having nuclear weapons. It is stated in multiple books and online that Israel is 5/6th country to have nuclear weapons, between 1960s and 1970s (so either before or after China). Furthermore, there is an even Vela Incident in 1979 that most historians and scientist see as a clear nuclear test.

My question is why would Israel hide it? Looking through all wars between Israel and Arab powers - wouldn't being "known" as nuclear power during the Cold War help them to establish themselves in Middle East easier? What is world stance to this problem, especially the United States as being an important ally to Israel? Do we know by any chance did Israel ever think about using its nuclear weapon?

Hi all, I saw this comment on YouTube and I was wondering if the commentor is actually correct.

​

"No the average American was not richer than the average Soviet, the American upper and middle class yes, but the American workers greatly struggled while Soviets had free housing, healthcare, education etc. Generally the life quality in the USSR was one of the highest for the common man.

BS nobody was ever killed for criticizing any Soviet leader post wartimes. In fact the USSR was more progressive than the USSR, people could strike and protest, labour rights did not exist in the USA, you are talking about a mix of red fear, orwellian dystopia and post-cold war anticommunist propaganda. Trust me the Soviet Union was a much more liberal and progressive place to live on during the 1960s, America was still very racist back then".

​

Thank you all.