When reading about the different groups in the Middle East who are currently in conflict zones, it is typical for them to claim that democracy isn't compatible with Islam. However, I know that the early Islamic rulers, like the Umayyad and Abbasid, had translated western literary works (predominantly Greek) into Arabic at an unprecedented rate. From these translated works they adopted philosophy and mathematics, to name a few. Is there any knowledge of what these early Muslims thought about the writings on democracy from Greek writers like Plato and Aristotle? I'm sure these works must have been translated as well.

Thank you in advance.

This might betray my limited understanding on where Central Asia begins and ends...when I read about central asia and such entities as the Xiongnu Confederacy or the Mongol Empire it's always in a context of 'These are nomadic warriors banding together that swept aside the sedentary, medieval worlds of Europe'

Correct or no, it's definitely hammered constantly that the greatest central asian empires came from nomadic roots. So my question is: where were the sedentary groups? There had to be more than a few, and they clearly existed alongside nomadic groups without dying out. How did they manage in such an environment?

[deleted]

Was it an economical issue being that they had already been mass produced, and the resource cost to produce something else would have been a waste?

Was it a technological issue of not having a better baseline infantry weapon already developed, and therefore just stay with the tried and true?

My apologies if this is the wrong sub!

You sometimes hear on the news about recently discovered tribes. Are they truly just being discovered? Do these "lost tribes" become a tourist attraction for the rich? Does exploitation take place by those who "found" them and does it change these different tribes' culture?

Thank you in advance for answering my questions!

In the sense of that more resources would be generated, then the amount spent in the maintenance.

Hello, i recently watched a documentary about the Vangarian Guard and they said in a different way that the capital of the Byzantine Empire was a very corrupt city where there was many different groups of political people that was together,

Was it like this?

They also said that Basil the second was a very power hungry person who used the Vangarians to torture political enemies to keep hes power and vice versa, which makes me then think. How did Basil the second manage to pay the guard to do hes dirty work if the whole empire did not like him?

I know this has changed a lot through history and through different populations, but why do we have these particular standards today?

By how arabised I mean how much of the population used Arabic as the sole spoken language in their households and on the streets.

The portions in question are: "There is none like you among the gods, O Lord” (86:8); “For great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised; he is to be revered above all gods” (96:4); “Our Lord is above all gods” (135:5); “Ascribe to Yahweh, [you] gods, ascribe to Yahweh glory and strength” (29:1, my trans.); “He is exalted above all gods” (97:7). What does this mean, in a larger sense? Did ancient people believe their god was the strongest of many, and if so, are their any beliefs still held related to this?

[deleted]

As I understand it, the rhotic R sound, which we associate with most American English accents, was first used by the British.

The British upper-class eventually* started speaking without the rhotic R sound, to distinguish themselves from the lower society classes.

Now, I don't know much about the colonization of Australia, but wouldn't the British settlers have spoken WITH the rhotic R sound? So, how come Australians' R sound resemble the British and not American (which WAS a British English accent)?

*[Side question] When did they start using the non-rhotic R sound?

For starters, sorry if this was either answered elsewhere or falls into the 'we've had too many Nazi questions of late' in this sub. That said, though, I'm looking for more of a social/societal summary of life under Nazi rule, specifically pre-war.

For the 'average' German-what I'd think of as an average 'worker' in the USSR or your 1 car, 2.5 kids American of the 50s. Maybe they are or are not members of the Nazi party, but they're not in the military, didn't support Hitler's rise to power, and are just 'going with the flow'. I suppose in terms of specifics:

1. What was 'family life' like? Was there significant social pressure to marry and have children? Were those unable to have children seen as 'lesser' than those who could?

2. Were people expected to be ideologically devoted to the Nazi cause, or was it more like many totalitarian states in that public lip-service to the cause normally sufficed?
3. Was religion suppressed in the smaller towns/into the homes, or was it merely suppressed at a public level?
4. Anything else you might have depicting what an 'average', non-fanatic German may have experienced under the Third Reich.

Edit: some formatting.

I am wanting to learn more in depth how the Christian Bible came to be. I would like to know things like; who were the different authors, how many books were left out, a summary of what the books read and a specific timeline of when those specific books were rejected.

I doubt the Aurelian walls were able to keep all those people inside, I mean the Romans did not had 10 story building for housing did they?