Hello, asking a question for the first time.

I just started reading The White Castle by Orhan Pamuk. The book is set in 17th century Ottoman Empire. One of the protagonists is a scholar close to the royal court, Hoja. From what I gather from the first 60 pages or so, Hoja considers himself a serious scholar who bemoans other people's stupidity. When he would want to explore the world of astronomy, all the royal court (including the sultan) wants of him are astrological divinations. This is a great frustration to Hoja, who wonders why people are so empty of mind and uninterested in real science.

How accurate is this portrayal? Was the 17th century Turkish elite really this superstitious and uninterested in science? I understand that what we consider "real science" (the scientific method, empiricism, rationalism) is a fairly recent phenomenon, with many celebrated historic scientists being interested in trades we nowadays consider false (e.g. alchemy), but the tribulation of Hoja, however, seems to be a total disinterest in natural science in notables around him. While this, of course, can be considered a creative tool, I am interested how close this portrayal hits home.

Anyone ever seen something like this or know what it is or stands for? My husband got inherited some stuff from his great uncle and among his WWII things was a stamp.. No words or price..sticky on the back like a stamp but a photo on the front..he thinks it's a picture of his uncle

British territories got quite involved in funding the construction of RN warships during the great naval race of the early 1900s – Australia, New Zealand, Malaya – but they must have come to believe at some point that the British fleet would not be sufficient on its own to protect them. So what's the history of the Royal Navy's relationship with the broader empire?

I'm particularly interested in the design and use of the aircraft during a time of "peace". A book that goes over the major changes and why they made those changes without a major war going on would be really fascinating to read about.

I've heard the Celts celebrated the winter and summer solstice, and that Christianity took over already existing events, but I'm wondering if they regularly celebrated other occasions?

From research into the Romans I've found that resources are limited on Celtic culture, but is there any information available on their festivals and what these celebrations consisted of?

I would love to hear about the Celtic cultures in Gaul or Britannia just before Caesar's conquests, but don't want to limit the question to a period that we don't know much about, again any information about this culture would be fascinating to read.

Thank you in advance!

According to wikipedia, Spartan warriors "wore almost no armour apart from a shield, leg greaves, bracelets, helmet and a robe", which conjures images of 300. But then, on historyvshollywood, it says " Body armor was a valuable asset to the real Spartan soldiers. [...] "I took those chest plates and leather skirts off of them [...] ... Spartans, in full regalia, were almost indistinguishable except at a very close angle."

Neither of those are good sources, I know, particularly wikipedia. I'm mainly looking for a simple answer for book-writing purposes, nothing academics-proof. I figure it also depends on one's wealth and status, but a general answer would be appreciated or even a picture.

The islands in question are Saint Christopher (Saint Kitts), Saint Martin, Saint Barthélemy, and Saint Croix.

[deleted]

It just seems odd that if you were say a Devil worshipper, that you would be sent to hell and the Devil would punish you for it.

How did Christianity come up with this idea of "him" inflicting justice on the wicked?

Edit: I could see how it could happen if he was a moral/amoral god of the underworld such as the Greek Hades, where the Underworld is open to all. But Hell is especially reserved for sinners.

"Witch" by itself is not always a gendered term as such, but "warlock" generally is - was this distinction made in medieval Europe during the Witch Trials, or did it come about later, after the term "witch" began to refer almost exclusively to women?

Is there a name for this time period that started sometime in the 1800s and lasted until about the 40s, in which exploration of the world seemed to be quite notable?

Around this time there were many European colonies in Africa and Europeans made archaeological discoveries in Egypt. Teddy Roosevelt explored the Amazon, exotic goods were being exported throughout the world. Safaris and game hunting became popular among the rich. India was at the height of colonial rule.

Books and movies made this time popular, in ways being depicted in Indiana Jones, Tintin, and many more.

The only thing is, I don’t know what this golden age of exploration is. Why did it come about and what certain events made it what it was? I find it to be very intriguing and I would love to know more about it, or if there are any books or movies, etc, that I can reference.

He built a giant empire in Asia, but always expanding to East. With his powerful armies maybe he could have conquered all of the Mediterranean. Why didn't he conquer the western territories of Europe?

I saw a question similar to this one in the r/NoStupidQuestions subreddit and one of the responses said that Europeans basically skipped over the lever action repeaters and went straight from single shot rifles to bolt action rifles and that the lever action guns were pretty much a purely American gun. Why was that?

Dreher said "The massive migration of barbarians into the Roman Empire, in the 4th through 6th centuries, changed European civilization permanently. They caused the fall of the Western Roman Empire, and centuries later, the rise of a new civilization there, based on the descendants of old Roman stock and Christianized Germanic tribes. Will the latter-day descendants of those Europeans be able to hold back the “barbarian invasions” from Africa in the 21st century? Or will they have to do as the Romans did and absorb the strangers, and, over centuries, create a new civilization? These are the stakes".

Is it true that the Barbarian invasions were as bad as people like Dreher say they are or is there more to the story?

Edit: I accidentally deleted another portion of my post. What I said was I kept seeing the Barbarian invasions of Rome being used as a comparison for modern migrations, but this doesn't particularly make any sense to me. The comparison seems very forced for one, and the people who make tend to ignore a lot of the nuances of the modern migration situation and the nuances of previous barbarian invaders.