I know that even rural life in Ptolemaic Egypt was not uncivilized, to say the least. Already in the Old Kingdom villages had plenty of life, and in this case I am asking what would be in a Ptolemaic Egyptian village where the landed infantrymen as well as some landed horsemen would live like, specially having in mind that the area would be one of those heavily settled with Hellenic and Macedonian men who fought either as mercenaries or retainers for Ptolemaios I.

I'd like to write a character who is drafted for the military. Concretely, an army against Antigonos, and this man would go with his wife, leaving to children or other family the care of their lot, which is one for landed infantry, which is a third of the one for cavalry. They live on the peaceful village of the Arsinoite nome, a horse's ride day away from the capital of said nomos, but he is a close friend of the nomarkhos.

As it might be inferred, the life would be in one of those places of the Fayum which were intensely settled after Ptolemaic dominance of Egypt in order to establish their own loyal nobility beside the one already extant before them, long before Alexandros indeed, and thus this would be a place with... quite a Hellenic bias, but nonetheless, Egyptian life is absolutely central (especially when the drafted man goes to the army, the multiple ethnicity of mercenaries and "recruits" will be forefront) and important in this man's chapter.

FEEL ABSOLUTELY FREE TO CORRECT ME ON ANYTHING I GOT WRONG.

And I have to ask u/cleopatra_philopater since I have it understood she's the expert on Hellenistic Egypt, an era and place I am highly interested in exploring in my fictional book.

Disclaimer: sorry if this type of post isn't allowed, I couldn't see anything about it in the rules

Writing a research essay about the causes of the end of the Cold War, need lots of sources. Thanks guys.

Source:

Anarchy after Leftism, page 64

My (basic) understanding is that zionists (especially chaim weizmann) had been able to lobby great Britain to publish the Balfour declaration in 1917. Many brits at the time felt that having jews on their side was a good thing- and making enemies of them would be dangerous. I've heard that zionists in the British government (chaim weizmann?) helped stop a separate peace being signed with the Ottomans so that palestine could be reserved for them. I know that this is an enormously politicized topic, but I'm wondering how much zionists and jews influenced the course of the war.

As a rule, I lend benefit of doubt to explanations for causes or events which are dismissed but once considered popular- there is almost always some kernel of truth in exaggerated hyperbole. Thus, when I consider how many Germans thought that Jews had betrayed them in WW1, I want to know to what degree this idea is true. I think that despite many world leader's fears, Jews were neververy organized. But, Jews as a group tended to be more communistic and anti-monarchical. I could also easily believe that German jews in positions of influence (such as bankers) would have worked against the german government, after Britain signalled their acceptance of zionism with the Balfour declararion.

So, were their any significant jews in Germany who worked against germany? Did they work with explicit or implicit direction from Britain, or independently? Was it widespread or isolated? Was it just a demographics issue (e.g. Jews tended to be more wealthy and politically liberal and thus less nationalistic and more globalist as a mean)? How justified was the German sentiment that they had been betrayed?

The invention of the printing press has definitely spread to the islamic world, and the Islamic theology has been as prevalent as the christian one at the time, and being a faithful of another faith was way more tolerated than in Europe of the time, but still, there was no runaway protest like during Reformation and no subsequent 30 years' war-like event, which made politics more important than religion (after everyone understood they are going to have to live with protestants/catholics). Why?

I was in history class, and my history teacher mentioned something insightful he used a quote which i can't remember. But the basic idea was no nation would tell their story in the inferior tone but in superior tone, even if there was clear defeat against them, only to maintain they are the superior stable nation. Countries who have won their independence, consider it as a victory of separation and independence that they are, were, always, self sufficient they didn't need outside west influence. The way I see it, we wouldn't know true detail of any event, and they may be distorted to show a country is superior than the other. We can make an assumption of the result that happen. If someone can share their expertise on this, I would appreciate it. Thanks.

I read Lenin and the early Bolsheviks envisioned the entire world divided into Soviet Republics. Lenin even wanted to make Soviet Republics out of Turkey and Finland while he lived.

And could anyone give some explanation about who Steiner was and the other names given and things, sorry if this question has been asked before, i just love history :-)

Surely anyone couldn't actually challenge any accusation against them by combat, right? Also could people really have a representative fight in trials by combat? What's the point then? To just have two mercenaries fight doesn't make any statement about anybody, does it? In what places and time periods did trial by combat exist? I'm considering writing a short story and I'm wondering how trial by combat would actually work.

Certainly (state) size matters, but it doesn't seem to be everything. Why are counties where they are? How much have they changed since states were incorporated?

While I might simplify the US-Jap conflict, it was to acquire more resources that were cutoff in the us blockade, that was one of the main reasons for the Japanese armed forces to declare war on and attack the south-east Asian region.

• How much did the Empire of Japan manage to extract from these regions?

• Where they able to meet their needs?

• Was it possible for the area to meet the Japanese demand in a reasonable time-frame?

• Where resources sabotaged? Subject to guerrilla attacks?

Basically how worth was the actual conquered areas for the Japanese war effort? Both in what the japanese hoped to get, but also how much they could get realistically.

I've heard this somewhere that the average accuracy of a solder in WWl was extremely low like in the single digits, and not much better in WWll. Is this true and is there any actual data on it. Also if so , is there an explication for that

What I mean is, what was it that kept King George from continuously sending troops untill we couldnt fight them any longer?