How much is taught about it? Is it a source of proudness in the same way as Greek nationalists use the Antique Greeks?

Sorry in advance if this sounds offensive / ignorant. I am asking because his journey took place well before the Atlantic Slave Trade started. So I am not sure what the sub-Saharan Africans' grievance would have been against "white people," or what their concept of "white people" even was. I guess "white" meant Arab to them? But then, why wouldn't he just say, "contempt for Arabs"? Did Europeans even go to those lands in that time? Alternatively: is this contempt noted by any other travelers of that time, or was ibn Battuta just reading too much into his encounter? Or perhaps a mistranslation?

Anatolia was once a Christian nation which spoke many languages, including Koine Greek. Then around 1000 AD, Turkic tribes calling themselves Seljuk came from the East, and about 500 years later, they conquered Constantinople and renamed it as Istanbul. At this point, they became known as Ottoman after Othman.

But why the change? Is it because the original Seljuks were so different culturally, ethnically, etc. from their later selves?

Hello, I was interested in a quote from Stanley Kubrick as follows:

“He told the American Jesuit film critic Gene Phillips:

"It's difficult to make a film about a historical figure that presents the necessary historical information and at the same time conveys a sense of the day-to-day reality of the characters' lives. Most people don't realise for example, that Napoleon spent most of his time on the eve of battle immersed in paperwork."

Stanley Kubrick: A Biography by John Baxter.”

The source at the end of the book list this as coming from the following book: "Stanley Kubrick: A Film Odyssey (1975)".

Please could someone explain why Napoleon would need to do paperwork? I would have presumed he could delegate his oral instructions to his aides/secretaries would would then write down his orders and pass them on to his generals?

If anyone could illuminate this curious aspect for me I would be very grateful.

I'm an English Uni student researching the life and legacy of William Cobbett. I'm keen to know if William Cobbett is a well known figure in America, and how he is portrayed.

Is he celebrated for being a radical? Is he vilified for his controversial opinions? Does anybody even know who he was?

A few weeks ago I read a book about Hitlee and I found that on his will/testament that the fortune to be given to the next german state. But yes, did the Allies divided with the Russians? Did the Russians put their hands on it when they arrived first in Berlin?

I have been reading up on ironclads and have found them very interesting. Unfortunately almost all of the info out there is about the ACW. I am looking at how a large naval conflict would have happened in the period 1860-1880.

Heard the a good portion of men can find direct links to the Khan. Why did he happen to be the one with so many descendants and not other figures from his time period? Why are so many related to him??

I recently watched a documentary on Netflix entitled "Secrets of Underground London" and one segment featured the discovery of plague victims' skeletons from around 1348-1350.

I noticed, however, that pretty much all the plague pits that were unearthed showed only human skeletons without any evidence of remaining clothing. I didn't expect to see artifacts from the time period because as far as I'm aware, the bodies weren't buried with them, but somehow I doubt all or most of the bodies were stripped naked before burial. Unless I'm wrong, of course! From the rate that people were dying, I don't think it would be practical anyway.

So, what I'm essentially asking is did their clothing simply just rot away?

[deleted]

A common talking point I’ve heard from far-right traditionalists and Neo-Nazis is that the Weimar Republic was a period of decadent degeneracy among the masses with unrestrained sexuality running amok, but how true is this in reality? Did the Weimar Republic actually have loose sexual mores in the social and entertainment media sphere?

[deleted]

Did the Soviet Union, Post-Stalin, ever have a real plan to 'win' the cold war? How did they plan to achieve this? Did they presume that the U.S. would be overthrown by some communist uprising or were they simply going to have perpetual standoff?

What did the end-game look like? Did the Soviet plan involve an eventual military conflict?

I recently learned about the Banat Swabians in Austria Hungary, I have ancestors who were banat swabians from Austria hungary located in Timisoara, Timis county, Lovrin Timis, And Hodoni.

this made me start thinking about myself, and the Banat Swabians. First question, what do I consider myself? I am an American of what heritage? Am I of Austrian Heritage? since they were germans living in Austrian land or were they not "real" Austrians? Or am I just simply of "Danube/Banat Swabian german descent?" or most simply, Of german descent? I'd like to say Austrian but I fear my ancestors weren't true Austrians as according to Banat area history they only arrived in the late 1700's ealy 1800's then left for America in 1903.

Second question. What were banat swabians considered as by the Austrians? Were they seen as equal german Austrians, or as lessors for being Eastern Europeanized Germans? Did the Austrians call them Austrians or did they differentiate them and call them some variant of Danube swabians/banat swabians?

Third question. Did any banat swabians (specifically timis and Timisoara region if you know about it) fight in war for the Austrians? were they allowed in the Austrian army? did any fight in Austrian wars prior to ww1, and did any fight in ww1 itself?

Final question. When a Banat Swabian joined the Austrian military, did they join Austrian german regiments and armies or did they have to join Romanian/Hungarian/eastern European foreigner regiments and armies? I'm very very curious and interested in that question mostly, did they join german regiments or fight with their Hungarian and Romanian neighbors?

I'm just browsing Wikipedia, and the article on the Australian QF 25-pounder short mentions that both British and Australian variants of the 25-pounder were capable of firing "propaganda" shells. The wiki sources this claim to Peters et al.; The Oxford Companion to Australian Military History.

I've never heard of artillery being used for such purposes, but I'm assuming we're talking about some kind of leaflet dispenser here? Were these really developed and issued to regular artillery units? Were they ever deployed, and how would they have been used in practice?

Based on my knowledge they seem to be accurate except for cleary the vambraces and I believe the shields. However, I’m not sure about the cloaks being accurate. I’d believe higher ups at the time wearing cloaks, but would everyone have them? I believe at the battle of Alesia a major factor described was how Caesar stood out in his red cloak. It doesn’t make sense to me then that every soldier would be wearing one. I’ve seen people pick apart the vambraces, but the cloaks!? So really my question is are the cloaks accurate?

In short, why is colonialism not considered to have impeded the growth of Southeast Asia the way it is considered to in India?

From a cursory glance, the GDP per capita within the Four Asian Tigers and Tiger Cub economies is higher than GDP per capita in India.