To my knowledge, the Cordoban Islamic state was much more advanced then it's christian neighbors in northern Hispania. Economically, it was an urban cash economy, whereas the christian states had feudal economies. It was also a very urbanized society, and considered to be one the wealthiest states in Europe. Cordoba even had the largest population of any city in Europe at one point. I don't like using this word, but I did see some people on this sub call the economy and society of the northern Christian states "backward". Yet, in the 8th and 9th centuries, I see the Christian states expanding southward. Even in the 10th century, at the peak of Cordoba's prosperity, the Christian states seemed to be the ones doing the expanding. Why was this? If Cordoba had such an advanced society, how come it was never able to military conquer it's opponents? From what I know, the northern Christian states were only ever able to field very small armies. At the Battle Of Sagrajas, the Christians had about 3,000 soldiers. At the battle of Fraga, about 2,500. At the battle of Ucles, 2,300. And these battles all took place after Cordoba's peak in power. It makes sense that these states would have only ever been able to field about 3,000 men in any battle against the state of Cordoba, while Cordoba could likely field 10,000+ if it just created an army of levies from only Cordoba. So why was Cordoba never able to conquer the Christian states of Northern Hispania?

[deleted]

We know the obvious one, He spoke German. But do we know if Hitler was fluent in any other languages? Or at the very least if he spoke broken English or French? He was a soldier in the first world war so I would imagine he heard French or English possibly at some point during his time in the front. Perhaps he knew some Italian? If so, Do we have recordings or any transcript of him talking to Benito Mussolini or Neville Chamberlain at all? (I know the Nazis were very specific about keeping records and also destroying them).

I know that strategically, nuking a major population center now would be worthless and a waste of a nuke. It's quite obvious that nowadays silos, naval bases, military airports, government administration buildings, etc. would be targeted. Nukes are a way to disable the state/military and allow for an easy invasion.

So was it just a test? To send a message? Could they not target military facilities because they had AA guns that could shoot down a bomber carrying a priceless weapon?

Cleopatra VII has been one of my favorite historical figures since I was little. Recently, I've been doing a lot of reading about her life and the Ptolemaic Dynasty as a whole. I read in a book about her by Lucy Hughes-Hallett that that Cleopatra dealt with nationalism under her rule. I'm wondering what was the nature of this nationalism was. Did Cleopatra treat different ethnic groups differently? How was her approach similar or different to previous Ptolemaic rulers?

In The Great Escape they say it's their duty to create chaos and hopefully cause the Germans to pull troops from the front lines. It seems like a low chance and high risk.

My interest is philosophical. I’m terribly curious as to the moral posturing of pro-slavery advocates. Noam Chomsky recommended this activity, but I’ll be damned if I can find any source texts; plenty of free lectures though! But I want to hear it from themselves, from someone that believes it in their bones that they have a right to another human.

And hey, if you wanna throw in some general tips on finding such sources myself, I’d be forever thankful.

Thanks!

.

I always read and hear that during the 17th and 18th centuries, war was fought by gentlemen. You stood in lines and fired volleys at each others' lines. It was looked down upon to use cowardly tactics such as guerrilla warfare.

So my question is, how did the battles even start or form? Did the generals write each others letters saying lets meet at say Trenton and fight a battle December 26th?

Or did a large enemy force show up at your camp and sit there and wait while you got in your lines and prepared to fight?

I am aware I do not fully understand this concept at all so Im looking for someone to just give me a brief overview. Thanks!

The stereotype of the arrogant WWI general sipping his wine and sending young men to their deaths for the sake of his ego is a popular one, but how accurate was it? Was there anything that military leadership could have feasibly done differently? (Without the benefit of hindsight that we enjoy.)

I feel like we, from the west, know close to nothing about famous eastern composers from the past. Is this due to us just acquiring a taste for our own music and "rejecting" other styles by that time, or something else? Adding to that, are instruments seen as essential on western classical music, like violins or the piano, only used recently on eastern songs?

I've been listening to a course available from The Teaching Company called "The Big History of Civilization," by Craig G. Benjamin. In one of the lectures dealing with the original silk road, he says:

The sculptures produced in the Kushan cities of Gandhara and Mathura were created by the combined talents of Central Asian, Indian, and Hellenistic Greek artists. It is apparently they who were commissioned to create the first images of the Buddha for worship. Until this first silk road's era, the Buddha had never been depicted in human form, but instead had been represented by symbols including an umbrella, or footprints. The first representation of the Buddha was created in Gandhara, and was influenced by depictions of Greco-Roman deities.

I was pretty surprised to hear this, and it seems to indicate a fairly intimate exchange between Hellenistic and Indian regions, if they went as far as to take inspiration from each other's depictions of deities. Is it accurate, or at least plausible, to draw the connection between Greco-Roman sculpture and early depictions of the Buddha as a human figure?

As far as I can tell, 'Bloody Mary' first appears as a nickname for Mary I, and then the name only appears again in American folklore legend a handful of centuries later. Are the two Bloody Marys linked in any way, or is just complete coincidence? Was the malevolent spirit that lives in everybody's mirrors originally meant to be the ghost of an English queen?

(I got it from a quote on French wikipedia but lost the page it was on before I could look at the source and thinking about it more... I came to this question.)

What kind of goods were they trading and producing? What role did slavery play? Was a lot of this due to stronger centralization?

Given that his music is often associated with the Civil Rights movement, was there any outcry from Civil Rights supporters? Are there any conspiracies revolving around why he may have been targeted? Or was his death more or less dismissed as "it happens."

Wikipedia mentions that Misha Glenny notes their settlement in the Balkans inflamed tensions but I have the book and it doesn't go into much further detail.

[deleted]

I know that the main reasons for his campaign were to become even more beloved by the plebs and to repay his debts, but these reasons don't show me why did he prefer Gaul. What were its advantages? Why didn't he choose for example some eastern region which were considered traditionally rich?

Surely the image of the spartiates created by pop culture has to be based on some "real" stuff.