So according to my understanding the Roman religion and many other pagan faiths of their empire often didn't demand exclusive worship of their gods and neither did many of Christianity's rivals like Mithraism. Obviously Christianity seems to be more likely to demand exclusivity but is it know if early churches ever took a liberal interpretation of lines like you shall have no other gods before me as meaning you had to consider Yhwh their main god but could still keep their original pantheon on the side? Given that the church made other pragmatic moves like dropping a lot of the old laws concerning things like circumcision that the Romans didn't approve of I wondered if they might have ever made a move like this to try to be more attractive to non-Jews.

I am writing a paper for a “war and peace” political science class and have to select a battle to write on. This paper needs to have as many first hand accounts of the battle and post battle as possible. Ideally anything from the Canadian POV would be best but any view or history of the battle would be immensely helpful to me! I’m having a hard time accumulating credible sources.

So, I just want to make this clear off the bat, I am not a rhodie fanboy, and fully realize how racist their regime was, but that being said, how come despite having a similar government, the U.S, while formally denouncing them as well, decided clandestinely to keep relations going with Apartheid South Africa through such policies like the Tar Baby Option and providing logistical/intelligence support during the Angolan Border War, but never assisted, and were in fact instrumental in the demise of Rhodesia (when Kissinger forced South Africa to break ties with them, leaving them without a trading partner and unable to keep their economy going) despite the fact they were also fighting a communist insurgency, and by going against them they were advertently allowing communism to spread on the continent.

I couldn't find any information for when and why did Pol Pot changed his name, and the meaning of it. I've read theories about Vietnamese giving him this name, or Chinese contracting the french words "Politique Potentielle" which to be honest, doesn't really mean anything in particular. Does it even mean anything ?

I know, he tried in England and France, who didn't want him. But im sure countries like Denmark would have him and his familie, especially since his mother was Danish, and there children was close to those of the danish royal family. It really don't make any sense to me, was it just pure judgement from Nicholas?

Thanks for the help.

Specifically, I'm interested in Hawaiian history from 1778 until the early 20th century.

Many rural communities in the US held belief in the supernatural for a long time, and Hispanic communities in Mexico and neighboring states have curandero folk healers and the like... were these practices considered "witchcraft" during the period of the Old West?

Upvote your favorite(s), submit ones you don't see listed.

In the USA and Canada a PhD generally includes coursework and can typically take 6 years or more to complete, where as in the UK, Australia, NZ and parts of Europe there is usually no coursework and 3 years is normal - with many programs having a hard time limit of 4 years. How did this difference come about?

EDIT - to clarify, I am asking: what is the historical reason for the difference, NOT what is different about the content of the two systems.

Did people try to make daily forecasts?

So I read from different places different reasons given to the Japanese attack of pearl harbour. Wether it was retaliation against USA cutting oil export, or japan trying to destroy the Pacific fleet that would offer resistance towards the Japanese conquest of Southeast Asia. So was it both, more?

Sorry for the awkward title.

These days we have all sorts of simple books to help kids learn to read. I am thinking of the type with a big picture of an apple with the words "A is for.." underneath.

Are there any examples of similar types of books from, say, the medieval period when reading was much more limited?

In Australia today droughts almost seem like the normal state of affairs, and I was wondering how Aboriginal people dealt with them. But that got me thinking, if droughts are normal in Australia, then would they have even been recognised before colonialism and comparisons with European climates?

So, I guess this is a three part question:

• Did Aboriginal people consider droughts to be different from 'normal' weather?

• Were droughts as common in pre-colonial Australia as they are today?

• If so, how did Aboriginal people deal with droughts?

I am reading Kissinger's book "Diplomacy" and the first few sections of the book deal with the system of balance of power in Europe. One of the main things Kissinger keeps repeating is that Great Britain almost always acted in the interests of the weaker side in any conflict in Europe in order to preserve the balance of power. My question is then, why didn't Great Britain join French in the Franco-Prussian war in which it was clear that Prussian victory would alter the balance of power significantly?

As my title references, I am looking for a reading list or other media that discusses revolutions. Specifically, what makes a revolution successful, what the world's revolutions have in common. They don't necessarily need to be political revolutions, I am also interested in the tipping point for social revolutions that make them effective. The more recent the better. Any suggestions?

I'm watching a documentary on "the search for Hitler's bomb" which claims there was a successful test of a fission/implosion type bomb that vaporized everything within 600 meters. Yet I've always been told the Nazis didn't have a nuclear weapon. Is the documentary accurate? Did they have a small nuke? If so what was holding them back from making something like what we used on Hiroshima/Nagasaki?

What interests did Austria-Hungary have in China at the time?