During the last scenes of the movie ''The imitation game'',the breaking of the Enigma code is presented as the main cause that lead to the eventual defeat of Nazi Germany.Is it factually true?

Hi. So, recently, I have been getting interested in the Western Asia/Northern Africa regions. I have this one question: What was the degree of Hellenistic influence that Alexander brought with him during his conquest of Egypt? More specifically:

-How did it affect Theology? Was there a conflict, asimilation or syncretism regarding the religions of both cultures? And in what degree?

-How did the Egyptians react to a new royal dinasty exclusively formed by a foreign culture? And at what degree did the Ptolemaiacs saw themselves as either Hellenistic or Egyptians? In the same sense, how did the Egyptians saw them?

-What are some clear examples of how Hellenistic influence changed or modified some day-to-day, general, "normal" activities of a typical Egyptian?

​

Thank you :)

Edit: I accidentally typed conquer instead of conquest in the title 😬

I think that both of my grandfathers served for some time in India with the British military during WW2, but I don’t know any details. How could I begin to research where they might have been and what they experienced?

I am not sure if this is the right category to ask this subject, the reason I'm only asking is because I have finished reading Iris Chang's book on the Nanjing Massacre and I read that she suffered from depression as a result of her research.

I much appreciate everyone's comments and I don't mean to offend anyone.

Thank you all.

He said that the way the Irish during the Irish War of Independace used small groups of soldiers called flying columns and also didn’t have any uniforms inspired Che Guevara in Cuba and the Viet Cong in Vietnam.

I was wondering how true this is seen as he can sometimes make mistakes. During World War One he kept on referring to the Ottoman Empire as Turkey, he said that Archduke Franz Feridinand was assassinated in Serbia, and he repeatedly called Kim Jong-Un as King John Ung.

I have just happened upon a cheap copy of Raul Hilberg's three-tome The Destruction of European Jews — the 2006 French-language Gallimard edition, to be precise.

I know this work to be a landmark in Holocaust studies and generally considered authoritative, but it was originally published a long time ago — in the '60s. Is it still worth reading today? Did later Holocaust historiography significantly revise or nuance any of the book's claims?

As a random thought, in the long history of this sub, had there been any answers that the author was writing off of personal experience as a participant, witness, or someone closely involved? E.g., "here is what people had and were doing in this place and time. Source: actually was there", or "yes, these events went so and so. Source: was member of the investigation commission after it happened", or something like that? I am aware of the "no anecdotes" rule, but I think that this case (eyewitness statement) skirts it from the "allowed" side.

Can you give examples of such evils he described?

For instance, did the ancient Greeks take their founding legends and the Trojan Cycle as factual? And what were the factors that allowed people to question whether a source was biased?

I've been trying to do research on this subject and it has been so frustrating! You can find dozens of pages describing how titles worked in the 17th and 18th centuries, but virtually nothing on how titles worked in pre-renaissance (medieval) england, france, germany, and italy. With that in mind, here's what I want to know.

• When did the children of kings start being styled as "Prince/Princess X"? One resource suggested that, prior to the Hannover succession, children of the kings of england would've simply been titled the Lord or Lady X.
• I understand that, during the renaissance, children of Sovereign Dukes & Princes in the Holy Roman Empire were been styled as Princes... but was this the case in the middle ages as well?
• Given that French vassals were virtually sovereign during most of the middle ages, would their children have been styled, or at least regarded, as a Prince or Princess (i.e. children of the Dukes or Counts of Burgundy, Aquitaine, Normandy, Anjou, Flanders, Champagne)
• I noticed that during the middle ages, a lot of english princes and princesses are styled as "Firstname of Place" (i.e. Mary of Woodstock, Elizabeth of Rhuddlan, Edward of Westminster"). Why was this; would this factor in to their official style? i.e., prior to her marriage, would Elizbabeth of Rhuddland be styled as "Elizabeth, Lady of Rhuddlan"? I know that in france, sons & daughters were often titled "Monsieur/Mademoiselle de <Place>", with <Place> being a random holding of their fathers'... I wonder if this practice is related somehow?

I know these questions may sound trivial, but I'm trying to create an accurate titles system for a video game mod I'm working on.

By gendered languages, I mean languages that have genders for nouns like masculine, feminine, and neutral.

As someone whose native language is a non gendered language, learning gendered languages always confuse me. It's very hard to memorize what genders that these objects have, especially since a lot of times they don't have patterns.

But I'm curious. How did these concepts come to be? Who assigned genders to those objects?

Say, I'm a guy from 10k years ago who just found these unique objects that had never been found anywhere else. Should I just randomly call this object masculine and tell everyone else that this object is masculine?

What were the methods of compulsion to get them to work? What registries exist of enslaved/freed Fins aside from Church registries?

Whenever I have seen someone talking about Alexander the Great in India or Pakistan they always refer to him as Sikandar so why is it ?

By this I mean were there crews comprising English, French, Dutch, Spanish etc. sailors, i.e. people from different backgrounds and countries speaking different languages, or were pirate crews mostly segregated by language/state of origin? Not really focusing on the racial white/black/native aspect.

I'm already aware that in some places in europe, women, children, and old people were allowed to deny a challenge or hire champions in that case either as an accused or accuser, but I'm sure the difference between a malnurished peasant who's like 5'3 and an 6 foot tall elite knight is much larger than the difference between a man and a woman, and equal to a teenager/old person and a healthy young person. What's to stop a strong person from pummeling anyone who catches them, or lynching an innocent person out of spite or on someone's word.

Hi! Sociology major and former history major here :)

While doing reading for one of my classes, I came across this passage:

The English’s first attempts at colonization began in Ireland. They first invaded Ireland in 1169, and by 1200 they controlled the country (except for a few scattered clans who could not be conquered). The Irish were despised because of their nomadic and pastoral culture, which relied upon animal herds and collective land use. By contrast, the English had long depended on acknowledged land boundaries and farming with very ordered social relations that had become increasingly hierarchical in class terms—the propertied lorded over the propertyless (p. 45).

I don't take particular issue with the premise of this work or the rhetorical vein in which it exists, but I was sorta surprised by what I read because it didn't quite match my preconceived notions of pre-colonized Ireland (which, to be fair, come from the odd documentary and Wikipedia page). So, I figured I'd ask some experts; I'm particularly interested in the accuracy of the author's claim that "the Irish were despised [specifically] because of their nomadic and pastoral culture" and the implication that the English/Angles were organized in a manner that was significantly more classed/hierarchical than the Irish.

Thanks!

I read that his rule was so bad that the senate imposed "damnatio memoriae," where they erased all record of his existence.

If this is the case, how do we know he existed at all? And how do we know about specific aspects of his rule?