I'm learning about Islam right now in AP World History, and I'm kinda stuck on just what the Umayyad was. Was it the tribe/thing that made Muhammad flee from Mecca to Medina? Or was it a Muslim empire that spread from Spain to India (And possibly even begins to realize he's about to make everyone on /r/AskHistorians mad moors?)? Bad puns aside, both how did the Umayyad run, and how was it able to spread like, more than even the Persian empire? Thank you, and I know this question is really stupid lol.

I've been listening to the first three parts of Bernard Cornwell's The Saxon Stories recently and have become very curious about this tumultuous time period in Britain. While the books are historical fiction and should be taken with a pinch of salt, they seem to portray the general significant events of the invasions decently enough. However, like many works of historical fiction and fantasy, they are mostly focused on nobility and the true victims of war are seldom mentioned other than in the first book. So there are a few things I'm wondering.

1. Did it matter to the average peasant of Northumbria, Mercia, East Anglia or Wessex whether his/her life was governed by Saxon lords, Danish lords or Saxon lords who were actually Danish puppets? What were the big differences?

2. Did Anglo-Saxon peasants have a problem with the Danish invaders specifically being pagans, or were they viewed the same way Scottish or Welsh Christian raiders would have been?

3. Was there a sentiment among Anglo-Saxon peasants of protecting their people, their religion, their way of life that would have made them more tolerant of being levied into Anglo-Saxon armies - or was it purely a matter of defending their homes and families, whoever the invaders were?

Thanks in advance.

EDIT: Mistake, wrote Anglo-Saxon pagans instead of peasants in question three.

[I posted this question 7 months ago and got a lot of upvotes but no answers... hopefully the right historian will see it this time!]

From different sources I've seen mention of the period in which, due to the ravages of war, the geographically-immense city of Rome had only a fraction of its earlier population -- in the low to mid tens of thousands perhaps, living in clusters within an otherwise abandoned city. Between the last parts of the 'Gothic Wars' and the formation of the Papal States seems to be the period in which Rome the city was at its lowest, when compared to its prior prosperity.

Are there any reliable books or interesting scholarship focused on the city of Rome during this period, drawing from reliable primary sources and first-hand accounts, that give insight into what conditions in the city were like at this time? Is there anything that stands out as especially descriptive, or detailed enough that we can better understand the day-to-day of living in the city? Where and how did people live? What was their relationship to the abandoned districts of the city, and how did they view those areas?

Recognizing Roman history as a source of inspiration for works of fiction, I've read a number of books that arguably borrow from this period and circumstance. Asimov's 'Foundation' and his descriptions of post-fall Trantor; and from Tolkien through a multitude of modern authors, 'ruins of former glory' are a nearly constant theme. And, contemporary post-apocalyptic books and movies/tv regularly portray imagery of formerly great cities fallen into semi-intact abandonment, sparsely populated by survivors.

So, what exactly do we know with any confidence about the city of Rome during this period? Where can I go to better educate myself?

Contemporary parents seem obsessed over absorbing parenting books and youtube videos. There is a general cultural assumption that being a good parent is a lot of hard, dedicated work and requires the right know-how. It seems instinct is not enough. Did pre-modern peoples view it this way, or would they be surprised by our modern concern?

By time, I mean how much did it change over time.

This question was inspired by a friend of my dad. He apparently was a Physics professor in the USSR. He decided to get ordained as an Orthodox Priest. They told him he'd have to renounce his ordination, but he refused. He was blacklisted from working as a scientist, his wife was essentially forced to divorce him to save her career, and he had to work as a cleaner for a while, before getting to the West (and now he's a university professor again). So I essentially wanted some context for the story.

In China, where I used to live, religion hurts your chances within the Communist Party, but it's not generally a problem for most jobs, though it depends a lot on which religion. I wondered if it was more of a problem in 80s Russia, or if it was just for the scientific class, or if professors were generally party members.

I've heard people often say that medieval peasants would have been all very lean and malnurished whereas the gentry would have been larger on average both in height and weight from access to a wider array of foodstuffs. Was this really the case? Were peasants all physically smaller and weaker than their lords from malnutrition?

I’m aware of how foolish I sound as of this moment, and I totally understand the need to take sources with a grain of salt. (Or several)

But I was listening to the Dan Carlin’s Hardcore history podcast “the Celtic Holocaust” today and at one point he mentions how a hundred years ago many historians would just take some sources at their word if they didn’t have express reason to disbelieve them. (Like Caesar) Nowadays we are more strict.

That’s awesome, we should look deeper into historical documents and try to get the most accurate picture possible.

But why must we assume everyone is lying? For instance Dan mentions several times how Caesar is putting good arguments and reasons into the mouths of people he supposedly wants his audience (the people back in Rome) to want him to defeat, and Dan goes into detail talking about all the possible cynical reasons for doing this. Why is pure honesty ruled out though?

Is it really so hard to believe that not all ancient writers were attempting to pull the wool over our eyes? Sure the individuals writing have their own biases, but we modern people don’t always have such a hard time looking past those to write objectively.

What if people like Caesar are actually being as honest and straightforward with their audience as they possibly could?

Sure they could still possibly be inaccurate, but why abandon believing someone’s word without explicit evidence to the contrary?

Teaming up with a monarchy while making a stand against royalty and hereditary power seems a little contradictory. Did any key members of the War of Independence voice concern over tarnishing one of the principles behind the war?

I've read that some of the Founding Fathers advocated for a monarchy-like system when designing the US government, is it more accurate to say they were specifically against the British monarchy and their specific situation, rather than the concept overall? (Thereby not having an issue with France having a King.)

I remember reading a while back that you guys don’t really like him all that much, which I can understand because of his non professional status and tendency to oversimplify and streamline his stories. He always makes sure to clarify that he is giving the “Dan Carlin version” of the history, which I think is a good disclaimer, and he seems to read all the right sources and cites them often enough with plenty of lengthy quotes. So what does he get wrong?

I remember someone on this sub once mentioning that the Mongol historians were especially frustrated with him, what specifically though?

Disclaimer: yes I’m well aware of his “pop culture historian” status, he seems to do plenty of research though. Do you disagree?

In history, when most nations are faced with obvious military defeat, either the defeated's leaders call for an armistice/peace and end the war to prevent any further pointless deaths, or the army themselves desert or mutiny to force a surrender, as what happened in Germany during World War I.

So what kept the Wehrmacht fighting to the very end even when the situation was obviously hopeless? I know the party's inner circles secretly disobeyed Hitler such as Speer's refusal to execute the Nero decree, or even plotted against him to end the war such as the July 20th plot. But what kept German soldiers fighting all the way until even Berlin was a pile of rubble, rather than mutinying or deserting when defeat was obvious around the time the Soviets smashed Army Group Center in August of '44, or the failure of the Ardennes counteroffensive later that winter?

[deleted]

I remember reading somewhere that around four million people lived in Cleopatra's Egypt. Assuming that's true, do we know how many of them were Greek-Macedonian settlers; e.g. 10%? 30%?

Also, do we know if the Ptolomies did anything to encourage Hellenistic settlement after their initial arrival e.g. did they hire 3rd BC Don Drapers to advertise Egypt to potential Cleruchs/settlers etc or did people just settle the land naturally?

Thanks for reading

This is a repost

The following scene from Sienkiewicz's Knights of the Cross (which takes place in 1410) made me think whether such a situation was possible at all. What would Zawisza do with his horse? Would members of his lance remain close to him all the time or was it more likely that the lance became separated during combat?

Under the gigantic Arnold von Baden, who was surrounded by country infantry, a rampart of Polish bodies had been piled up, while he, mighty and invincible, stood above it, as stands a boundary pillar on an eminence, at last Zavisha Charny himself came to him; but seeing the knight without a horse, and not wishing to attack him from behind contrary to knightly usage, he sprang off his horse and called to him from a distance.

"Turn thy head, German, and surrender, or meet me."

Arnold turned and recognizing Zavisha by his black armor, and his shield, said in his gloomy soul,—

"Death is present, and my hour has come, for no one can escape that man alive. But if I could conquer him I should win immortal glory, and save my life perhaps."

Then he sprang toward him and they struggled like two tempests on that ground covered with corpses. But Zavisha surpassed all men in strength so tremendously that unfortunate were the parents to whose children it happened to meet him in battle.

I know this question might be a bit trivial compared to some others here but my question is as per the title. How did raiding parties in WWI work?

More specifically, how did raiding parties to capture enemy prisoners work? How is it that a small band of an enemy force is able to capture (alive for that matter) a combatant and bring them back to their trench without being seen by the now prisoners fellow soldiers?

I find it hard to believe a soldier would just wander out of a trench as fooled by the enemy and for his comrades to not attempt to shoot the raiding party as they safely return to their front line.

I really in simple would like to know how the method worked and how often such an event occurred where live prisoners were taken.

Thanks

Did Protestants of 17th Century, refer to themselves as Protestants? I'm thinking in particular of the original English American colonists, did they act in the name of their King and 'Protestantism'?

I have seen this theory propagated on some Internet forums and there was an editorial in the New York Times in 1993 that claimed that Beria wanted to make radical changes to the orthodox Stalinist policy on both domestic and foreign issues.

One thing that always intrigued me is how prominent education in 1920s France is for many early prominent members of the CCP from Deng Xiaoping to Zhou Enlai to others.

My questions are

-why did the education and environment in France turn them towards communism, rather than capitalism or fascism.

-how did their experiences in France affect CCP during ww2, civil war and beyond?

Thank you.