The early 20th century was full of squabbles over the last opportunities to gain overseas colonies, but wars among European powers that could upset the continental balance in any way were heavily discouraged. Why then, was Italy’s war on Turkey so readily accepted by both European alliance blocks, when it very clearly would accelerate Ottoman decline?

I’m listening to ‘The Age of Napoleon’ podcast and the host claims that when Napoleon invaded Egypt, he seriously considered converting to Islam to better placate the locale Muslim populace. The host goes so far as to say he had settled on personally converting, to get the support of the local Muslim leaders, but then the local leaders demanded his army convert as well; as Napoleon knew that his army wouldn’t convert, and surely wouldn’t give up drinking wine, he reversed course on his own personal conversion too.

Is this accurate? Do we have sources that show he went this far and was going to convert if the local leaders hadn’t upped the ante?

Basically what the title says. I hate that humanity actually used nukes in war, but when trying to find another alternative that would've led to less casualties, I can't find any. Invasion of Japan was out of the question and would've lead to countless more deaths. Japan had this "victory or death" thing going on so they would fight to the last man. Also why didn't the US surrender to avoid dropping nukes? Would this lead to more war and conflicts down the line? I know that Japan also did horrible war crimes during WW2, would those have continued if it weren't for their surrender? What about driving Japan out of their conquered lands on the asian mainlands and then get to a peace treaty?

Anyone with more knowledge of how war politics work that can answer this?

I understand that the question might raise alarm bells, but I want to make clear, this is NOT a question with anti-semitic connotations and NOT attacking Jewish people or endorsing stupid conspiracy theories, I'd just like to query a historical phenomenon or even see if it exists at all, and I think a reasoned response to this might serve to dispel many of the more ugly ideas surrounding this topic.

So for context, on the "Russian oligarchs" Wikipedia page, it lists what it considers the 9 most influential oligarchs of the Yeltsin era: Boris Berezovsky, Mikhail Fridman, Vladimir Gusinsky, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Vladimir Potanin, Alexander Smolensky, Pyotr Aven, Vladimir Vinogradov and Vitaly Malkin. All of these figures bar Potanin, Smolensky and Vinogradov, so 6/9, are of Jewish heritage.

The same page has a similar list of the most prominent oligarchs of Putin's era: Roman Abramovich, Alexander Abramov, Oleg Deripaska, Mikhail Prokhorov, Alisher Usmanov, German Khan, Viktor Vekselberg, Leonid Mikhelson, Vagit Alekperov, Mikhail Fridman, Dmitry Rybolovlev, Vladimir Potanin, Pyotr Aven, and Vitaly Malkin. Of these names, all are of Jewish heritage except Deripaksa, Usmanov, Alekperov, Rybolovlev and Potanin, so 9/14.

I would just like to query how and why a group that constituted less than 1% of the population and went through periods of intense discrimination and mass emigration role to have so many influential and wealthy figures after the transition into capitalism?

On the other hand, did it stay divided? Did structures like the Catholic Church and Holy Roman Empire represent a credible continuation on the Roman Empire and what it represented to its populace? Could we say that there were parallel developments in a "national empire" of the Han Chinese and a "religious empire" of Western Christendom?

Hi,

I am doing some research for an art piece and am having trouble finding reliable information.

The piece I am working on is inspired by the infamous sack of Rome by Brennus in 390-ish BC.

My question is this: What would Roman scales & gold have looked like back then?

Edit: This research is for a personal tattoo. Nothing commercially related.

What the title says

Why did the Bolshevik's support these two in particular, out of the numerous others in China. I've only ever read how the bolshevik's influenced the KMT 's organization and operations but haven't read anything about why they decided in supporting the KMT, and Fengyuxiang.

In Matthew 2:1-2, Jesus is visited by wise men as a child and received gifts from them. They claimed to have received a prophecy from God to come to Jerusalem. The Latin vulgate describes the men as “magi from the East.” Magi were priests of the Zoroastrian religion, popular in the eastern empire of Persia.

Were these men truly magi? Why would people of a different faith celebrate Jesus? Was magi just an expression back then?

This is a critical argument that often comes up. I was under the impression that certain Mossad generals had meanwhile admitted to some attacks and I believe I had once read a piece about that. Certainly I can’t find anything now.

Does anyone know of any recorded evidence? Asking for an objective discussion only.

This is probably false to some extent because I get this perception mainly from movies and other media, but did soldiers in old wars line up in formations exposing themselves and taking turns to fire? If so, why?
u/Shadow_MD17

When I think Civil War, my mind immediately jumps to Matthew Brady, but when I look at pictures of the SAW I see illustrations/paintings by the likes of Remington and Christy. Was photography in 1898 so cumbersome that drawing a battle was a viable alternative to taking a photograph? A google search for Civil War Pictures will yield all photos, but one for the Spanish American War yields a majority of illustrations. What gives?

And what jobs did they do? Agriculture wasn’t as vast as in the Americas and already seemed established with English people working the fields.

I've read a good deal of Confederate speeches and letters in which they express the belief that blacks are inferior and made by God to serve white men. Yet such thoughts were considered barbaric elsewhere, not just in New England but also among the elite in the UK and France. Surely educated Confederates like Davis and Stevens must've realized they were on the wrong side of history, right?

Works of literature, philosophy, mythology etc.

Conversely, were there massively popular books that are pretty much disregarded now?

I don't know if this is a myth or not. I keep hearing/getting the impression that although "we" collectively "know" more as a society and civilization today, it seems as if the average or ordinary individual has a less broad knowledge base and less intimate understand of the more difficult subjects, i.e. math/science.

I am curious to know if a historian can tell me. What about the educational styles or teaching styles of the late 19th and early 20th century looked like.

What were the conditions in the classroom? What were the standards of performance? What level of authority did a teacher have regarding discipline, passing students, grades? HOW did a teacher lecture that is different then the way a teacher might lecture today? Who designed a course for students to follow? Was is a teach or the administration/school board/state?

​

When did inner city education start to collapse and decline?

I'm a layman, just seems to me, why not go back to the period in time where education was working for teachers and students best (societally) and go back to those methods to improve our education systems...

Also, was he aware of the atrocities Hitler had planned to make? Did he have any idea's about the "Jewish question"?

I am currently watching Peaky Blinders and noticed that some of the characters are quite frankly unashamed / have absolutely no qualms about identifying as fascists and some characters even flip from socialism to fascism with no moral qualms. I think nowadays, most would have a knee-jerk reaction to being called a "fascist" even if they were one. So how realistic was it for people to openly support fascism and did socialists ever actually cooperate with fascists like they do in the show? How did fascism become a bad thing in the public perception and when did this happen? What happened to the popular politicians taht were pro-fascism in countries like the UK / Canada / USA? Nowadays, I have a hard time understanding why anybody would ever want to identify as a fascist - what was the rationale for it back then?

I’m watching the first episode of Vikings: Valhalla on Netflix, and an early scene depicts soldiers tossing what appears to be kerosene (or some other clear, low viscosity fluid) on a building and setting it aflame. Since I feel pretty confident that petroleum refinement wasn’t happening in the 11th century, what would medieval soldiers have used as fire accelerants?