I'm aware that Ethiopia had an Archbishop who was later sainted, which caused me to think about whether Europe thought of Ethiopia and perhaps Nubia as part of their generalized notion of "Christendom." I'm mostly thinking of the middle ages. Would say an Ethopian Christian traveling Europe during those years be seen as a fellow Christian? Did western European kingdoms view Ethiopia in a similar way they would a place like Byzantium?

Taking examples from our era: Were there civilians who kept illegal swords for self defense, for example? Did swordsmiths trade on the black market to make a little extra money? Did samurai or quartermasters "lose" a sword here or there in exchange for some extra cash? Etc.

[deleted]

It seems Italy defeated Ethiopia easily in the 1930s, yet no other European power decided to do this? Britain and France all had bordering colonies. Also, why wasn't Ethiopia colonized in the first place? Was it left out of the Berlin Conference or somehow resisted the technologically superior European military?

Hello!

I am currently working on a DND setting for a campaign I am running. The party has a guild of roughly 30 smiths/engineers focusing on matchlock production. I have the following questions:

How much time would it take for a craftsman to create a single primitive matchlock weapon (Early-Mid 15th Century)?

Roughly how much did it cost?

What were they actually made of? Like I assume some sort of metal alloy and wood but maybe something more detailed/specific would be nice.

Hey all,

So in college around 2010 I had this professor for American Military History and he was so old that he probably bled dust. Anyways, a retired Army COL. from Korea, he had news paper clippings, told stories from his friends and his personal research that I cannot find anywhere. I highly doubt he was making any of this up but there is complete lack of proof however at the same time one cannot capture every story that happened seventy years prior during a war that circumvented the globe.

He told a story that if I remember it correctly went something like this.

Battle of Midway a carrier (cannot remember which one) was spotted by the Japanese and would surely be sunk. The carrier launched a squadron to keep the Japanese occupied which the commanding officer (a Lieutenant Commander) knew it was a suicide mission. Even if the squadron would have succeeded the carrier would be too far for the planes to even return without running out of fuel. The LT Commander knew this and opted to fly and lead his crews anyways. They all launched and were killed.

Does this sound familiar to anyone or can someone shed some light on this who might be a Midway expert? My digging and research have been unsuccessful. Long shot I know but worth it. Thanks!

I know it was used in the 1848 Revolution but I was wondering about the original one

Muhammed was born into the Quraysh tribe in Mecca. I read that when he started preaching it was largely against the use of idols; was he preaching against polytheism or idolatry within the Judeo-Christian tradition?

Vote for what you enjoyed, submit what you think is missing!

I am writing a piece for a film journal on Edgar Wright's The World's End, and want to to discuss the film in relation to the history and geography of the 'New Towns' or garden cities, particularly Letchwroth and Welwyn (where the film was shot). I have watched a few documentaries and have some key points of reference earmarked, for instance Ebenezer Howard's work, but don't really know where to start as I am not a historian or geographer. I will be using a primarily Marxist cultural framework, and am particularly interested in the class constitution of these towns and the utopian element of town planning. Any recommendations?

​

Ta

I ask this as a mother of young children in modern Minnesota. I cannot imagine trying to do this without YouTube, or at least a television, particularly with winter coming up. How did they do it?

[deleted]

[deleted]

I can't for the life of my wrap my head around how in a mere hundred years, Christianity went from being the victim of attempted eradication, to the state religion that got in to the business of the eradication of its enemies itself, both outside (paganism) and inside (Arinaism. Well, kind of, but you get the point.)

Personally, I believe that people in history have no agency. Society has laws (I do not mean the legislative ones, but more like that of physics) and people are just swept in the currents. When "we" change something, that's society reshaping itself according to its own laws, we are just cogs in the machine, like how a clock jumping a minute is not a decision of its cogs, but a result of them functioning in a system. This is why it feels so... strange to think that Constantine single handedly set original European culture on to a course of extinction (and to be the victim of cultural cannibalism, looking at you saturnalia Khm I mean Christmas.)

So, Constantine legalized christianity and empowered it because he needed political support, that much is clear, which fits in to the "No Agency" thing. He didn't do it out of conviction or belief: Society's laws dictated he has to, in order to stay in power. Was there ever another option? If the other guy won the bid for the Imperial throne, could he have had the option to do anything else if he wanted to stay in power?

Sorry if this doesn’t belong here but what better place to ask?

I’m a graduate of Ba history and Ma history of medicine and absolutely loved doing my course. I am now in a weird limbo whereby I am working in an ok job but I yearn to somehow get into a research of public engagement position (ideally in a museum). I have years of part time work experience and voluntary roles but every job I apply for within these fields, I seem to get rejected.

Have I done the wrong degree, or should I just expect it to be hard industry to enter in the uk?

Cheers!

I know that publicly there was never any acknowledgement that defeat was a possibility except in the context of exhortations to fight/work harder, but AFAIK Churchill at least was convinced for most of the Battle of Britain that Germany was about to invade and Britain would be overrun, and I imagine that the unbroken string of defeats in the early stages of the Pacific War and the poor performance of the Americans in their first battles in North Africa didn't do much for Allied confidence either. I also know, though, that the Allies were often wildly overconfident, for example about the effectiveness of aerial bombing at crippling German production. Given that, was there already a unanimous belief that an eventual victory was inevitable before Stalingrad? Or, on the other hand, did anyone in the know continue to fear defeat into late 1943 or even 1944, or take setbacks like the debacle at Anzio as evidence that Germany was turning the war around?

[deleted]