I was reading the Wikipedia page on the Islamic Golden Age, and it says "Islamic paper makers devised assembly-line methods of hand-copying manuscripts to turn out editions far larger than any available in Europe for centuries." However, the cited source deadlinks.

I find this interesting, as I was unaware of any pre-Industrial Revolution precursors of this type of labor.

Hello historians! I'm pursuing a BA in History at the University of South Florida and I'm only two semesters away from heading on to graduate school. I'm concentrating on Irish and Celtic history. I'm still torn over medieval and revolutionary (17th-20th C).

I'm compiling information on graduate programs in the US and Europe. My wife and I are in central Florida, USA, and she'll be finishing up her MA right as I finish my BA, so we have freedom to move. I'm fluent in English, my Latin just needs some brushing up, and I'm working on Irish and Italian non-academically. I'm studying Digital Humanities as well and I'm getting better at Python.

Is your school great for Irish studies? Have a Celticist in an otherwise strong medieval program? Are you a professor at Trinity College Dublin and you want an American graduate student? I'd love to hear from you.

Pretty self-explanatory.

Hi Reddit! In school we were asked to research up on the next chapter, namely stalin's economic polices and their impacts. I narrowed it down to 5 year plans , industrialization of the country and collectivization. So does any of these policies have more success than failures, vice versa or equal success and failures?

Personally I think collectivization was a failure due to him killing the kulaks(rich peasants) if said they were to resist giving up their land, leading to a loss of lives

I think that the 5 year plans were a success as they greatly boosted the their resources, but reduced their standard of living

For industrialization, this led to shortage of houses due to people going to the city to work in factories

What do you all think? Feel free to disagree with me!

[deleted]

I was given the book as a gift, and I'm wondering how accurate the novelization is to the Sagas and Norse mythology that it is based off of. I'm a huge Neil Gaiman fan so I'm sure I'll enjoy the book regardless, but I'm interested in how historians familiar with the Norse feel about it.

It seems like a very large portion of native american tribes living in what is now the united states that we still hear about today, or that are well know, live/lived in 1) the dakotas 2) alabama and florida or 3) the four corners region.

Where these places actually populated more than other areas?

I'm after an object that is proof of religious change in a Roman province around the Principate period of 30BC to around 284AD, but an important one. I've been wracking my brains and my books and can't find many good examples. Do you guys know any off hand?

Thank you.

I know that Germany and Japan were allies, but couldn't Germany have just remained neutral in the Pacific?

Im but a layman in this area but the generall felling i get by reading about the english medieval occupation of some parts of France that the english was truly a force to be reckon with and my question is this. How is it that a small country like England could win against France which by what I understand was a bit of Medieval powerhouse severall times over? Thanks!

[deleted]

As per the title. Thanks to everyone in advance.

Lever-action rifles such as the Henry 30-30 became commercially successful near the end of the American Civil War in the later 1800s, and even saw use by Union troops, which is a part of why they decidedly won, when many Confederates still relied on flintlocks.

Such a style of firearm became very popular among the American civilians as well, and remains an icon of American history.

If this is the case, then why didn't the U.S. military (or anyone else, for that matter) employ such a style of rifle during their involvement with in the First World War, instead relying upon the slower, more prone to jam bolt-action?

Thanks in advance!

I'm currently working on a university assignment and my topic is pilgrimage in ancient Greece and the Near East. I have Christianity down as it generally spread through Constantine. I am unsure about any one dominant monotheistic religions though. I know Islam arrived in Arabia around 632 CE (or presumably earlier as that was when paganism) was eradicated, but what about the other regions?

Thank you in advance.

Was it through his influence as a leader? Did the German states want to unify and he was the one to step up? Any answer or correction to my question is greatly appreciated.

I am aware that there was a pact between Japan and USSR, but given all the events that took place in the WW2, a act seems hardly like a deterrent.

My point is, Nazis had launched an attack on USSR 6 months ago, and were hugely successful thus far. Then, why did Japan not chose to join that attack and finish off USSR before attacking US? From what I know, it seems nearly impossible that USSR would have won a two front war, given Churchill's inaction and no other powers by their side.