I've heard basically three histories, and I'll attempt to give my lay-person summary of them all:

1. The Assassin cult used drugs and mysticism to motivate agents before suicidal(or nigh so) tasks, and got known for using hashish to this end. Thus, they were known as 'users of hashish' which eventually became the word for Assassin.

2. There is no actual connection between hashish and the assassins, the result being bad translation of arabic by westerners presuming the words had anything in common when they in fact did not. The connection is purely some form of western backronym.

3. The assassin cult was the object of plenty of ridicule (for numerous reasons, political, religious, etc) and were effectively tied to the drug as a form of slander, an attempt to discredit them. Their contemporaries claimed they were drug users or addicts to minimize their influence. This may or may not be a parallel name to another name they had.

Reading the wikipedia article I think all three of these are espoused in different places which just makes me more confused. Is there something I'm missing that makes these make sense together, is one of these predominant? Are they all independently true, in a sense?

For example, Ancient Greece and Shogunate Japan are often described as being tolerant of homosexuality, when in reality these cultures only tolerated relationships between grown men and teenage boys, prostitutes or slaves. A man had to be the active partner in the relationship, and if he allowed himself to be the passive, penetrated partner he would face great shame.

So, were there any cultures that tolerated or accepted what might be described as "egalitarian" homosexual relationships between free adults, with no particular stigma reserved for the "passive" partner?

I've also noticed that a lot of ancient writers seemed to be totally unable to understand how lesbian sex might work. Were there any cultures where same-sex relationships between women were tolerated, or at least understood?

From what I've read, it seems people ate just about anything for breakfast. Be 18th century Canadians eating breakfasts featuring things like pickles or hot chocolate. Medieval English commoners eating bread and ale. Or Vikings eating leftover stew. They just ate random food, apparently. When did people - in the West anyway - start categorizing things like bacon and eggs or toast as "breakfast foods".

Did some Soviet soldiers wear the SSH 36 helmet during the Battle of Stalingrad, or was that helmet completely phased out at that time?

While watching a movie, someone suggested that Heisenberg didn't want to succeed in developing a nuclear weapon for the Germans. Was American success due to the will of the people involved? The resources allocated? Sheer luck?

I was recently watching The ABC Murders which is set in Britain during the 1930s. Throughout the show we see fascist posters, people handing out fascist flyers and people wearing fascist pins on their coats, how common was it for people to openly express this kind of support?

In the book, the narrator Allen Quatermain has conflicting views on the Zulu, Khoisan, and other indigenous people around him. He is very familiar with their culture, being fluent in their language, yet also on occasion insults their primitivity. He is uncomfortable with and distasteful towards saying n*****, yet also refers to people as Kafirs and Hottentots, both of which are currently considered racial slurs. I’m not asking about the narrator’s views however, but the historical connotations of these words. Did Victorian British consider Kafir and Hottentot as disparaging as the n-word, or was it a “culturally aware” title for the time?

Hello, I'm doing a project about Japan's history. Can you guys tell me something about Japanese royal costume? Like the change throught the years and the rules when the tailors make the clothes. Thank you very much!

I've read so many histories of battles in the Second World War and they always refer to the names of guns and weapons. The authors write as though the intricacies of these weapons would make sense to a reader with no military knowledge. I am looking for a book that talks specifically about battlefield tactics in WW2. For example, when do you use a sub machine gun, how you use a heavy machine gun, how to support a tank, what a howitzer does, what is a mobile gun carrier and how is it better than a tank, how to deploy a unit, how many men in a unit and what are their roles. This kind of stuff. Any help gladly appreciated

My question is simply. When the Lombards invaded and occupied Italy but especially northern Italy did the Lombards simple take the position of the elite/ruling class of the italy/northern Italian population or did they drastically or completely mix/replace with the population that was there be forth them.

Hi,What are the best websites to find out what my grandfather did during the war? He never spoke about it when alive so we have very little to go on other than he was in the RAF, he was stationed in India for around five years, and loads of photos of him with random women, alongside his telegram explaining his departure in 1944 due to medical reasoning. We have no idea about his squad or what he actually did, other than be an apparent war-time model. I have tried to look on some websites, but I couldn't find his name.

Thank-you in advance.

Bonus Question: Does anyone know about the possible car make "OTTOPHOCUS"?
I have tried to look online but have found nothing. I realise it could just be what the car is named and not the actual make but, I would just like to double check.

It is almost never mentioned before the Napoleonic and World Wars. Then it is never explained how Britain took this extremely strategic rock for themselves.

Note* I know that the spartans wore armor instead of being almost naked

[deleted]

Hi!

I was wondering if the Roman army at the time of the Roman empire (or republic) used archers in its army. Since the only things I know of are velites (thst threw javelins) and slingers.

This information may mainly come from total war games.

On a more serious note: I never heard of the use of archers in my history classes concerning the Roman Empire. So that got me wondering.

I don't know much about WW2 since my interest primarily lies further in the past. I am aware that France had heavily fortified their border with Germany after the Franco-Prussian war and that Germany accounted for this and invaded through Belgium to avoid that fortified line in WW1, after which France created the Maginot line.

I did a cursory reading of the Battle of France and it seems like their intent was to have their best available at the Belgium border while the Maginot line held the rest but it seems odd that they wouldn't have made an attempt to continue the Maginot line north since that was Germany's last invasion avenue.

Was it because the terrain wasn't as rough and thus an invasion force could avoid the more heavily fortified regions of the area or was it an economic issue?

Please correct me if my assumptions about anything are incorrect. I intend to delve deeper into WW2 but I just have a lot on my plate concerning history books at the moment so I have a very cursory knowledge of it.

Pretty much the title.

I'm reading about the Celts and I keep reading so often about contracts, but the people were almost all (if not all) illiterate and their cultures focused on oral tradition, so how would they have formed contracts? One form of contract was for joint-ploughing but WAS it written down? Did they memorize the wording of the contract? Did they use a standardized contract (probably likely), which if so, did they have witnesses to such? How were contracts 'drawn up' in an illiterate society that focused heavily on oral traditions?