I'm doing a project and I have to explain how religion/economics was used to discriminate. Similar to the holocaust, how people looked down on their religion and stuff, if that makes sense. I can't find any info on this for the life of me, and there's not much info in general on the Nuer genocide.

I AM ASKING FOR RESOURCES, PLEASE

Was their religious freedom taken in any way? or something similar? thank you

I am currently reading the Anabasis, after having finished the Hellenica and my approach thus far has been to read his work in the way that I read Thucydides or Tacitus, which is basically to take what he says at face value. Obviously he has biases, both as a result of his cultural background and his personal experience, but that can be said of any historian, but I do not get the impression — unlike Herodotus — that his works are largely fantastical, fictional or fictionalised. Is this an incorrect assumption?

I came across this quote in my textbook, "The fall of the Roman Empire has been blamed on the consumption of wine...because wine at the time was fermented and stored in vessels made of lead, and a lead-based additive was used to enhance flavour. It is believed most of the Roman nobility suffered mental instability as a result of lead poisoning." This is NOT a history textbooks and this immediately stuck out to me as suspect.

I’ve had a hard time finding books and media that really talk about the beginning of that system. All I ever hear is about the divine right to rule, but nothing about how that philosophy actually influenced social organization to such a degree across Europe.

My assumption is that the barbarian tribes simply consolidated power after the fall of the Western Roman Empire and economies became localized due to the infrastructure decay, which allowed the social organization of pagan polytheism to blend with Christian monotheism and birth the archetypical castles, peasants, kings, and jesters imagery that defines common understanding of European history, but I think I’m just waxing poetic for my own entertainment. Am I somewhat on track? I just can’t find a lot of specific stuff on that shift and none of my history teachers ever touched on it.

Just a random thought I had lately, but how did people in the past (especially in antiquity) deal with common infections/were they really totally powerless against them? I'm in the medical field and I can't imagine not having antibiotics. I'm thinking about bacterial and fungal more than viral, since I know immunocompetent hosts can usually clear up or contain most common viral infections. But what did people do if they had an abscess (were they able to do an incision and drainage)? STD? bacterial pneumonia? even athlete's foot? never mind things like meningitis which I'm sure was deadly like it is today.

​

Thank you for any answers!

Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union had 2 different ideologies. The Soviet Union had communism and the desire to spread it further in the world while Hitler hated communism and Nazism is about inferior vs superior peoples.

The Nazis thought Slavic people(and Jews) were subhuman and wanted to exterminate them and starve them to death and replace them with ethnic Germans where they lived. I don’t understand why Stalin would forge an alliance with Hitler when they had different ideologies and goals. I also read Stalin was shocked when Hitler decided to invade the Soviet Union and one of the reasons why the Nazis made such rapid gains is because it caught the Soviet Union completely by surprise and they had to mobilize troops.

Specifically, I would like to know what kind of permission a British explorer would have needed to find the Northwest Passage (ex. would they have needed a charter?). I would also like to know how they would have received funding for an expedition and if they were all military-led. I know there were plenty of expeditions done through the royal navy, but I'm not sure if these were the only option and if they were government-sponsored, would the government only use ships from the navy?

I doubt Ramses II would have described himself as living "1250 years Before Christ", after all.

Both are these mysterious figures related to esoteric knowledge, and al-Khidr seems to mean "the green one." At first I thought the Green Man was a more celtic figure, but then I learned that representations of the Green Man have been attested in parts of the Middle East, so there is a geographic overlap between these two figures. Could they have a common origin?

No bias answer and please I don't want any replies that have anything to do with russia ukranian war

I understand the Irish support for Jacobitism on the grounds of support for a more tolerant Catholic king, but I do not understand Scottish support for it. Given that in the English Civil War the Scots were even more hardline Protestants than most Roundheads, how did this later turn into support for a revived Catholic Stuart line?

This claim usually seems to be in relation to discussions of Oligarchs and Putin’s rise to power. Is it true that the International community provided any sort of political, economic, or legal aid to Yeltsin or any of the other post-soviet leaders?

I can see the point of the claim; imagining the Yugoslav wars, but with nukes, seems pretty terrifying.

How are locations chosen to sign treaties?. like why was the Treaty of Versailles signed in the Palace of Versailles?

I'm looking for some artwork (books, movies, graphic novels, etc.) made by children or grandchildren of Latvian and Estonian Soviet-era deportees about the memory of the Soviet deportations. My friend is writing a paper and is trying to find out how subsequent generations see and remember this event in Latvia and Estonia. We'd be very grateful for any help!

This was asserted in Howard Sachar’s “A History of the Jews in the Modern World” in chapter 32 but not elaborated on, beyond the following:

The antisemitic upsurge was more spectacular than effective, however. Most of Quebec’s industrial and commercial interests—shipping, railroads, lumber, insurance—were in the hands of the “Anglos.” The latter condemned the French-Catholic boycott campaign, which soon foundered.

To be clear, this is not a leading question or a question that seeks to call into doubt how old Hinduism is as a practise. I am just curious as to why the oldest recognised Hindu temple (Mundeshwari) only dates back to around 635 CE, Was temple construction not a thing in Hinduism before that? Were they torn down or destroyed? Thanks!