Hello!

Apparently Bayezid II forbid the printing of Arab script/ language for religious/ cultural reasons and the printing press only really caught on in the Middle East in full in the 19th century. Apparently Jews and Christians were relieved though, as afaik there are printing presses in monasteries from the 16th century in Lebanon.

I haven't found a whole lot of literature on the topic in my first search. My question is can you recommend me any literature and papers on this whole topic, the spread of the printing press in the Middle East? I can read English and German.

Thank you in advance!

After the first world war the entente formed nations like Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia. Did they realize that it was just a being ground for conflict between the different ethnicities? And was it done on purpose?

In the US, issues like abortion, gay marriage, and other issues are (usually) divided on the typical Republican/Democrat party lines for acceptance. Almost all Republican Presidential candidates spoke quite frequently of God last year during their campaigns, while Democrats didn't mention it as much. However, in Europe, it doesn't seem to have an effect, other than (some) people's issues with refugees (which happens in the States as well anyway). Why does Christianity affect American politics more than (Western) Europe?

Wikipedia said "Elizabeth Alexandra Mary" (names ?) But not surnames ? All kings and queens of England don't have surname ?

I've heard here and there that the Electoral College should be scrapped because it's purpose was to favor the slave states somehow. How was this so? What advantage/disadvantage did the slave states have in the Electoral College system?

Did the Indo-China region always have high populations? I suppose they didn't become "countries" in the modern sense till relatively recently, but were comparably sized areas in Europe also as populous?

I know these units from Napoleon: Total War, where they each have slightly different stats, but in reality what distinguished them from each other? A different training regimen? A different role on the battlefield? Just the whim of whoever raised the troops?

If a 19 year old were to make a grab for power today, it would be laughable. Jared Kushner is 36, and he's still considered fresh. Yet I feel like there are numerous examples of young upstarts in Rome making power plays. How did the Romans conceptualize age relations? When did someone "come of age"? Thanks!

Edit: Removed the implication that shorter life expectancy might alter views on age. Both u/Tehjaliz and u/XenophonTheAthenian explain why this is fallacious. Thanks for all the great info, btw.

The word retreat is more appropriate for what happened I imagine.

I don't know exactly why the Zulus decided to back off but putting myself in their place and giving them the benefit of the doubt as a kid watching the movie, I always interpreted it as a combination of the concept of a Pyrrhic victory if they had insisted on pressing on, with also it being a strategically insignificant target with a small amount of invaders in the scheme of the war.

Am I close or were there other factors at play as to why the Zulus decided to withdraw?

[deleted]

[deleted]

Reading Adrian Goldsworthy's 'Augustus'. In Chapter 13, while talking about Augustus' Spanish campaigns, he mentions that the organisation of the army camps was admired by "Greek observers since the 3rd century". Why were they admired by Greek observers specifically? Was it anything more than their functionality or effectiveness? Are there many sources on this topic?

I wanted to preface this by apologizing if this question has been fleshed out too many times here. Searching through this sub it seems the consensus is that Zinn's work is flawed or even fictitious. However, as far as I have seen, responses with this sentiment are mostly opinionated or without any examples to back up claims.

I read A People's History of United States several years ago and it quickly became my favorite historical read. During that time I was unable to fact check as I read and largely accepted his viewpoints as mostly and probably accurate. Naive, I know.

Today I stumbled across an article that discussed Zinn's bias and tendency to ommit or overly simplify historical events. The article also referenced a poll which voted APHOTUS as the 2nd least credible history book of all time. (Readers of the History News Network voted in this poll so I'm unsure how credible the opinions of their fanbase actually are).

Unfortunately, I'm unable to find any publications or comments that directly challenge any historical (mis)information contained within the book.

What are some examples of major flaws, misinformation, *extreme bias, etc within TPHOTUS?

Are there any credible books similar to "A People's History of the United States" that are widely endorsed by the historian community?

Thanks a bunch for any replies. This community has been one of my favorites to read through over the years.

I know that in aristocratic circles, incest was very common to "keep the blood pure". How was the attitude towards this subject in the "norma"l population? I guess it wasn't that of a common practice, as if then mankind (or at least some parts of it) would have eradicated itself over the centuries. Was there any conflict between their attitude and the things they heard from (or read in) the Bible, where incest seems to be very common?

I hope my question finds at least some interest and is somehow relevant, I just wanted to write it down here before I forgot it again.

Thanks in advance!