First of would I think of my current country (I understand nationalism is centuries away, but lets say I think of it as a nation) as "Persia", it is my understanding the word itself is a relatively modern use, would "Iran" be more appropiate as a historical convention?

Second, would I identify previous "Persian" empires as "Persian" and as predecessors of my country or would I think of them as completely different polities unrelated to my own?

It is my understanding that for a long time subsequent "Persian" empires succeded the administrative systems of Persia, would I think of this as cultural succession to call it something from previous Persian polities or as something unrelated?

So basically what was the historical perception of Persia, about Persia.

Pirates, middle ages etc. I'm interested in hearing if they were actually sharp.

I know there are reports of pilots crashing their planes into American ships because they or their planes were so damaged that they'd never make it back and subsequently decided to try to take out as many US forces as possible with them. The pilots I'm curious about however are the ones that were sent out specifically for the purpose of intentionally crashing into a US vessel and turning back home instead of completing their kamikaze mission.

It may seem like a pointless question - after all, the horrific results are the same regardless of the motivation behind the actions - but I am curious: Was the racism the core starting value and the end-game? Or did Hitler simply see manipulation of the tradesmen class on the sensitive subject of "the Jewish Question" as a quick path to power and decide to take it to the extreme? I know Hitler cited Karl Lueger (among others) as inspirational to what would follow, but it seems that Nazism became an ultra-extreme version of the more "polite" (in the context of that era) antisemitism of the Christian Social movement that was used as a political tool of the early GNP.

​

On a broader level, is this type of propaganda and manipulation (gaining support of a majority populace by oppression of a minority populace or turning the proletariat and petite bourgeoisie on each other in ignorance of the machinations of the ruling class) not commonplace throughout history? At what point do we start to "wake up" to this cycle and break it?

What was the approximate response time for field artillery from when a target was spotted mid-battle to shells going down range in WWII?

I'm referring to this particular passage:

Even when polytheists conquered huge empires, they did not try to convert their subjects. The Egyptians, the Romans and the Aztecs did not send missionaries to foreign lands to spread the worship of Osiris, Jupiter or Huitzilopochtli (the chief Aztec god), and they certainly didn’t dispatch armies for that purpose. Subject peoples throughout the empire were expected to respect the empire’s gods and rituals, since these gods and rituals protected and legitimised the empire. Yet they were not required to give up their local gods and rituals. In the Aztec Empire, subject peoples were obliged to build temples for Huitzilopochtli, but these temples were built alongside those of local gods, rather than in their stead. In many cases the imperial elite itself adopted the gods and rituals of subject people. The Romans happily added the Asian goddess Cybele and the Egyptian goddess Isis to their pantheon. The only god that the Romans long refused to tolerate was the monotheistic and evangelising god of the Christians. The Roman Empire did not require the Christians to give up their beliefs and rituals, but it did expect them to pay respect to the empire’s protector gods and to the divinity of the emperor. This was seen as a declaration of political loyalty. When the Christians vehemently refused to do so, and went on to reject all attempts at compromise, the Romans reacted by persecuting what they understood to be a politically subversive faction. And even this was done half-heartedly. In the 300 years from the crucifixion of Christ to the conversion of Emperor Constantine, polytheistic Roman emperors initiated no more than four general persecutions of Christians. Local administrators and governors incited some anti-Christian violence of their own. Still, if we combine all the victims of all these persecutions, it turns out that in these three centuries, the polytheistic Romans killed no more than a few thousand Christians.

Furthermore, if Romans really took exception to strict monotheism of early Christians why were they able to be tolerant of Jews and their, presumably equally as strict, monotheistic worship of what is ostensibly the same god.

[deleted]

A history professor of mine once gave an anecdote about the dangers of legal exploitation by claiming that America has outstanding debt to Germany that can’t be claimed. The story goes that America once asked West Germany for some sort of loan, and when reunification started, Germany requested that America pay back its debt in an effort to increase the country’s economic welfare. America promptly told them that the debt can’t be paid back because the debt was to be paid to West Germany, a now legally nonexistent country, and not Germany itself. I’ve never been able to find proof that this happened, so was my professor mistaken about this incident?

So I was recently reading about the way that European boundaries of the African colonies that became modern nations effectively ignored ethnic and cultural lines of the groups living there. This has contributed to a significant amount of unrest since independence because nations contained too many conflicting groups or struggled to form a national identity. I was curious why more African leaders like Thomas Sankara among others who wanted to challenge the post-colonial status quo didn't try to find a form of organization that was more suited to the huge diversity of groups living in their countries. These leaders seemed interested in dismantling many of the other forms of post-colonial domination but I've never heard of any attacking this huge factor preventing African self-sufficiency. Was the idea just not considered or was it just to much of a self-handicap to decentralize your nation without significant numbers of other countries doing the same?

I've checked the Wiki and didn't see any. I'm particularly interested in 17th century to present, preferably from a Mexican viewpoint. My Spanish is rusty, so I'd prefer books written in or translated into English.

I was reading a story where the narrator talked about how City A had weak walls because they prioritized the growth of the settlement and to be easier for people to moved around while City B was very defensible with its high thick walls but as a result grew slowly as a settlement.

​

Is this true?

I've always been under the impression that hardly anyone drank water since beer (watered down beer--called small beer if I'm not mistaken--but beer nonetheless) was seen as a more nutritious alternative. Wine and mead might also have been available--especially if you were in the nobility. I know water was certainly available in a lot of towns (EX: rivers, wells, etc) but was that water seen as fit for drinking? How common was it for there to be people who drank water regularly?

Thanks!

I realise that education was reserved for the children of elites, so most people got no formal education at all. But for the ones who did, did it start at the same school age we have today or did they start later into their teen years.

And to narrow it down a bit, let's only consider Egypt, the Hellenic world, Rome and China.

It was also said the Spaniards asked for a diplomatic interview with the king. I believe this was the first time the Aztecs had encountered Europeans, so I imagine their would be no precedent for any sort of translation.

From what I understand, it appears that the Amazonian basin was much more inhabited than previously tought, with farming populations and relatively complex social structures.

Which kind of societies are we talking about there? Did they had relations with Andine cultures (and if it's the case, did these relations played a major role as a primary/secondary cultural dynamic?)
What caused their collapse? The epidemic shock alone or colonial progression?

Which secondary or tertiary sources would you recommand on the topic?