Which one was harder? Which one met with more resistance? Was there a tangible difference?

So did the natives of North America and the slaves of Africa have any exposed contact? What did both sides think of each other. Did the natives ever assist the escaped slaves fleeing their bondage? I assume that at least some natives didn’t hate blacks as the blacks didn’t come there willingly and hated the plantation owners/whites for allowing slavery to exist. Is there any evidence of escaped slaves or just black folk in general settling with native tribes? Thanks for any answers!

With the death of George Bush, I have been thinking of the defining thing I remember from his Presidency the First Gulf War.

I am curious what Saddam believed would happen when he invaded Kuwait?

Did he assume that the West would do next to nothing, militarily?or that he could win a war against whatever military force they would send?

I've seen various articles (including the Wikipedia article on Franco) would seem to indicate that modern historians do not consider Franco's government to have been a fascist regime.

What distinguished Spain from regimes that would have more properly been labeled as fascist? What did Mussolini or Hitler do that characterized them as fascists that Franco did not do?

This is a question that’s been bothering me for a while. As far as I have been taught with regards to this area of history, we go from muskets/later on rifles, lining up side to side, to the more modern fire-and-manoeuvre type of war. But I’m confused about this switch. The two styles are radically different, and I understand why both of them were utilised when they were.

How is this sort of change implemented? There must have been a point where some soldiers would go to sleep in their barracks one night, and wake up to be told that everything they have been taught about infantry fighting is outdated, and they have to use these new tactics now? Are there records of soldiers finding it hard to adjust?

Looking for articles and explanations about this for a research project (so scholarly articles discussing this is even better, but popular is ok as well) about the Israeli kosher industry. Why aren't there more Dati Le’Umi (national-religious / Modern Orthodox) voices in the Rabbinate? Also, how is it that they have (afaik) control over industries such as Kashrut. Are private kosher certifications not allowed? There's Bada'tz, but why wouldn't there be any certification industries that are more liberal that the Rabbinate, and not just ones that are stricter?

Also, I was reading an old article (Rubinstein, Amnon. “Law and religion in Israel.” Israel Law Review, vol. 2, no. 3, 1967, pp. 380-414.) which said, "The Situation will be changed if the Observance of Kashrut in Business Bill, 1963, is passed, forbidding the marketing and sale of food products as kasher unless a kashrut certificate of a rabbi authorized by the Chief Rabbi is obtained" (Rubinstein 412). Do you know if it passed?

Languages: English preferred, or relatively simple Hebrew (or Hebrew that is about the actual laws of Kashrut, as I keep kosher so am familiar with the relevant terms)

How did the various WW2 combatants determine if the aircraft on the horizon/radar screen were friendly aircraft returning from a patrol, or if they were enemy aircraft coming to attack?

Hey guys, I'm writing some fiction about, to me, one of the most interesting conflicts in history. I know the outstanding myth of cavalry in WWI paints them in a bad, even incompetent light and I wanted to make sure I can accurately as possible depict the real lives of people in the war. The real history intrigues me more than the cliched "cavalry is outdated" and "MACHINE GUN SCARY".

​

I'm particularly interested in the developing roles and experiences of British (and British Colonial) cavalry on the Western Front from 1914 to 1918. More specifically, I have a list of questions relating to the lives of junior officers, NCOs, and regular enlisted. Again, this is not a school assignment, I'm just fascinated by the experiences of normal people. Any info at all is greatly appreciated.

​

1. Recruitment: did enlisted recruitment operate the same for cavalry as other branches? Was experience with horses a prerequisite? What was the relationship between weath, class, and cavalry recruitment? Were commissions 'purchased' or could anyone apply? Were English recruits treated or promoted differently from their colonial classmates?
2. Training: I understand that after the Anglo-Zulu war the British Cavalry emphasized dismounted action, was this reflected in training and how? What primary drills or tasks did junior officers train? And enlisted? How did these drills change prior to and after 1914?
3. Culture: similar to the question in recruitment, was the makeup of cavalry from a richer, equestrian owning class? Did cavalry incorporate notions of legacy ('descended from mounted knights'), prestige, and heroism ('Charge of the Light Brigade') in such a way to build a strong, unique identity? Did BEF leadership, like French or Haig, believe that cavalry would play an essential role in winning the war, maybe by means of a spectacular shock or rout of the enemy? Was this attitude reflected in the rank and file of the cavalry?
4. Organization: Prior to being split up and relegated by brigade/regiment to infantry commanders during the battle of the Somme, did cavalry participate in battles in larger (division, corps?) or smaller groups? How closely did they work with infantry groups earlier in the war, or did they act more independently? Being a more flexible and mobile force than most infantry, did smaller cavalry groups like companies have more autonomy to accomplish objectives on their own?
5. Tactical Development: the big questions here-- aside from the auxiliary roles or policing and moving man and material behind the lines, what was the cavalry's primary role in the first year of the war? Was cavalry mobility utilized successfully to recon and flank north-bound German units during the Race to the Sea? How did cavalry's role change into the second and third year of the war? It seems that by Somme 1918 they were intended to be part of the combined arms strategy but often held in reserve for the breakthrough that never came. How often did units engage dismounted versus mounted?

Thanks again for your help.

I was reading History Of How The Spanairds Arrived In Peru by Titu Cusi Yupanqui, and it said that the original copy was lost (and a copy now exists) and it made me wonder about how such documents are preserved and what could still be in archives awaiting discovery like Felipe Guáman Poma de Ayala was. Also for those who has worked with documents from that period (even outside of Spanish archives) what are some of your noticeable things about working with documents that old?

Edit: I meant 16th and 17th century

During the Columbian exchange, several diseases were spread to the Native American, such as Smallpox, Whooping Cough, Measles, etc. Were there any Native American diseases that were spread to Europeans that they didn’t have any immunity to?

It mystifies me how the Turks were able to fight off all their invaders and quash their internal rebellions so quickly after the Ottoman Empire had been so thouroughly defeated in WWI. With all their losses (both in terms of land and casualties) during WWI, how did they find the manpower necessary to fight a war on 4 fronts? And why were they able to succeed in the War of Independence while the seemingly stronger Ottoman Empire suffered humiliating defeats on all fronts (except Gallipoli) during WWI?

Hello, I've been looking into Stalin's role in the Great Purge. There still seems to be loads of questions and lots of historical debate surrounding Stalin's culpability in the scale of the violence and I was wondering how the historical perspectives have changed, particularly in the last 10-15 years. Furthermore, what was Stalin's role in the 'day-to-day' administration of the Purge and how intimately was he involved in the drawing up of quotas and communicating with NKVD Troikas - how accountable are other Politburo members too? In essence, I'm really trying to understand whether Stalin is solely responsible for the creation, administration, and escalation of the Great Purge, or whether other individuals - and agencies - were more significant?

Any answers would be much appreciated and I look forward to responses, thank you!

Was it entirely about the self-determination of the residents, British pride, enforcing international norms or was there some strategic importance to the Falkland Islands that popular memory has forgotten?

Hey, bit of background, I'm a college student who is currently enrolled in a class that focuses on Alexander the Great's conquests and legacy. I've learned so much about that period of time this semester, and it has quickly become one of my favorite courses ever!

In several of the lectures, my professor brought up how one of Alexander's closest companions, Ptolemy I Sotor (as he'd come to be known), ended up in charge of Egypt and founded the Ptolemaic dynasty, which controlled the region for close to 300 years.

This line of rulers seems to all be descended from ethnically European Macedonians/Greeks, and they seem to have inbred quite a bit.

Cleopatra the 7th, the one we simply refer to as Cleopatra, was the very last in this Macedonian dynasty.

So, that brings me to my question. Why do some people seriously seem to believe that she was racially "black"? It makes no sense to me. I know 1 person in real life who believes this, but she won't really explain why she believes that, which prompted me to post this question here.

If Cleopatra was the result of the inbreeding of a long line of Macedonians, how could anyone realistically claim that she was black?

I guess this has to do more with modern history and historical revisionism than ancient history. When did this notion first appear and why does it persist?