In 1987, NHK produced a TV series about the daimyō Date Masamune called Dokuganryū Masamune, starring Ken Watanabe. My question is simple, is there any historiographical value in the series? How historically accurate it is? Any further notes on the show are very welcome.

Thank you for your time.

Surely there must have been some treatments, remedies, or surgeries that people in the medieval era got right, so do we have any evidence of things that were effective?

How did Russia end up with all of them? Was there any discussion of the others receiving any?

When one reads of the Roman revolution, one learns of gangs raised by various political actors (famously Catilina, Clodius, Milo), with some gangs even being used to oppose other gangs.

What I do wonder about is the seeming readiness and ease with which gangs and even armies could be raised. What does this say about the condition of the lower classes from which these gangs were raised (actually, I don't know what the ordo of the typical gang member might be), and what sort of awareness of that condition did the senatorial class posses? And did anyone think to address, rather than exploit this condition?

I would also imagine that there was a client / patron relationship between these gangs and political actor who raised them. What sort of a quid pro quo would have been expected in such a situation?

As a practical matter, what tangible actions were these gangs intended to carry out (excepting the direct opposition of another gang)? Were they merely meant to threaten and intimidate? Harass and sabotage? What tactics did they employ to achieve their goals?

Finally, if it turns out that there are few primary sources which address any of these matters, are there any techniques which can be reasonably applied towards an answer?

And was it all that acceptable (or at least not frowned upon) to begin with?

I swear I’ve tried Googling this for like an hour and haven’t found a remotely relevant answer. Thank you in advance for any answers.

First post here, and on mobile so I'm sorry if I'm breaking any rules or this has been answered before, if it has been please link it. Thank you :).

So my question is in the title; where did the idea of the atomic bomb originate? For context I'm curious as to what brought upon this concept since to my understanding it was concieved either prior to or early on in WWII, despite there being such little nuclear fission technology and understanding along with little use of a weapon so powerful.

On those lines, how did physicists know/theorize it would work? Especially considering they obviously couldn't test it before the millions of dollars were poured into it.

I am aware that the Holodomor is controversial, but how can we deny that it is a genocide (man-made and planned) when the political opposition in Ukraine (mostly, but also Moldova) was exterminated by stalinists and that the Holodomor is recognized internationally as a genocide (by the EU and the UN) and by historians such as Timothy Snyder? Do you think that there is no political bias involved to make Stalin look less worse than he already is (maybe to avoid false equivalencies with Hitler)?

Their argument is that England was among, if not THE, the largest military in the world and the American colonies should have stood no chance of a military victory if England had really been trying.

Now, I get that the colonies would probably have lost if the full might of the English army and navy were brought against them, which I’m sure it wasn’t.

like suppose I'm the Captain of grain ship & I regularly do the run between Rome and Carthage in the 150s AD, Who do I work for?

I create plans for weapons, vehicles and tactics from different time periods as a hobby. I recently started thinking about making a WWI breakthrough doctrine, and designing the weapons/vehicles needed for it. I was thinking about having heavier tanks similar to a British Mark IV, supported by lighter vehicles. I was wondering if these lighter vehicles could perhaps be wheeled, with just enough armor to stop rifle fire, and maybe a machine gun in a turret, or if they should be more like the British Whippet or French Renault FT. Thanks in advance!

A large fleet of U-boats first destroying escorts, and then attacking the convoys with impunity. Why did this not work?

I was watching the film Nuremberg (2000 Film) and the character Hermann Goering said "What was Hiroshima? Was it not your medical experiment? Would Americans have dropped bombs as easily on Germany as it did upon Japan, killing as many civilians as possible? I think not. To an American’s sensibility, a Caucasian child is considerably more human than a Japanese child."

I know this is unlikely to be an actual Goering quote. But perhaps such views were expressed by others at the time? Anybody have any insights into this?

[deleted]

I know Lenin was a staunch atheist and the official stance was always anti-religious. Did this result in actual policies? More precisely: did the Russian people (and other citizens of the Soviet Union) actually become less religious as a result?

I think it's safe to say religiosity survived the Soviet Union, since the current Russian president seeks the allegiance of the Russian-Orthodox church, apparently a societal actor worth seeking out. But that probably falls foul of the 20-year rule.

[deleted]

[deleted]

Whenever I've researched the history of the Middle East (and Persia and India as well) I've noticed that most states and kingdoms are referred to by the name of the ruling dynasty. So, the Abbasid Caliphate, the Seljuk Sultanate, the Almoravid dynasty, etc. There are some exceptions, but this seems to be a general rule when talking about that region.

I'm curious as to why though, since most "Western" nations are referred to by their geographic location, or primary ethnicity. Is that just how convention dictates Islamic countries are referred to in the west? Or is that how they referred to themselves?

If not, how did Islamic or Arabic states see themselves or refer to themselves? Would a king of Ayyubid Egypt refer to himself as the ruler of Egypt, or of the Ayyubid Dynasty/Kingdom?

When the Abbasids replaced the Umayyads as rulers of the Caliphate, did they see themselves as a new dynasty in control of the same Empire, or as an entirely new state?

How about the people who lived in these places? How did they see themselves? Would a person describe themselves as an Umayyad? If asked by someone from outside, where would someone from the Umayyad Caliphate say they were from?

I guess this is really several questions, but they all tie into how Islamic/Arabic nations and peoples saw themselves. It seems to be different than Western self-designations, but I have no idea if this is how they saw themselves, or if it's a Western imposition.

[deleted]

[deleted]