Also, did they know of the Beta Israel group in Ethiopia?

Did the Nazis have opinions on the Mizrahi Jews? Did they have a plan to "exterminate" them?

[deleted]

Seeing as the various Republican paramilitarys were left leaning and there was an active conflict in the territory of a major NATO member there must have been some thought given to it.

I was reading about Visigoths and Ostrogoths on wikipedia, and I don't understand how Swedes from a Baltic island conquered their way from the Poland to the Danube and the Crimea, then conquered the Western Roman Empire, and then just faded away with none of their conquered lands speaking a Germanic language today.

Why were they able to consistently expand and conquer over so many centuries if their culture, language, and religion weren't strong enough to survive?

Were they religiously motivated like Jihadists, or did they have some super powered military tactics like Spartans or Mongols? Were they just really big and really populous? I see so much about what they did, but nothing about how or why. A decent explanation would be really appreciated.

Also, how was it financed in the south? What were the economic repercussions of rebuilding the south?

Long time lurker here - asking my first question on this amazing sub.

So I've read the FAQ relating to the causes of WWI. The FAQ certainly explains how Kaiser Wilhelm II grossly mismanaged the diplomatic situation, allowing the Entente Cordiale between the UK and France and the Franco-Russian Entente to form. It also explains the ethno-nationalistic tensions in the Balkans well.

To what degree is my line of thought below actually substantiated in the historical record, and what sources do we have supporting or undermining it?

It seems to me that severe political and social problems in the Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, and Russian Empires contributed heavily to the outbreak of war. If I recall my reading and documentary watching correctly, the Austrians were terrified of looking weak to Serbia (because they were weak, with secessionist movements in all non-Austrian/German regions); thus they were spoiling for a fight to reassert military supremacy over their backyard.

The Russians seem to have been equally terrified of such appearances, given that they made clear their intent to defend Serbia with their "period preparatory to war." I imagine that after having faced famine, a lost war to Japan, and a revolution in the last ten years, the Tsar needed to cover up his failures with a glorious rescue of a fellow Slavic people.

Serbia was a tiny country with limited resources and it seems that a war by a great power with another great power over the fate of Serbia could only be justified by a deep-set fear of one's inner weakness being revealed.

As for the Ottomans, the whole Balkan tinderbox situation would not have occurred if they were not so weak as to be totally unable to defend their Balkan territories against ethnic rebels and their European sponsors. It seems that diplomatic chaos in the Balkans, and a corresponding war over the pieces of the Sick Man of Europe, was inevitable from the very moment the Ottoman hold on the region was first successfully challenged in the Greek Rebellion in the 1820s and 30s.

[deleted]

I am curious to how much a good horse in 18th century Europe cost in relative terms. Would the average middle class household at the time be able to afford a horse?

Sorry in advance for the vague wording, this is not my area of expertise.

1. I don't know how to tag a post as meta. I believe the mods do that? Hopefully some one can inform me on that.

2. Military history arguably is one of the most popular topics on this sub reddit. Is the focus and interest on this topic out of touch with modern Academia?

3. **How Should Military History be Studied at all and be taught in general school classes to a broad spectrum of students?**When covering conflicts, material would usually cover major players, the causes of the conflict, and the outcome. Is this a good way to cover the topic for a general audience?

4. Is there any large benefit going into detail on this subject, for example, Battles, campaigns, key players.

5. Should Military History be taught at all? Should it only be the topic of study for specialists and enthusiasts?

I keep reading about Roman elections but I'm still not really sure who the real electorate is yet. I do know they had to be landed, male and Roman citizens, but what if you lived in Spain or Syria as a citizen of* Rome? What about people from Roman (or of Italian descent in other provinces)***?

And how did first waves generally end ?

If the plan would've been executed, would the King of Great Britain be crowned the Kim of France?

Though it is apparently quite common to add a fake middle initial in order to stand out amongst the John Smiths etc; I'm not overly excited about using a difficult Polish last name that most English speakers struggle with - you'd be amazed at the variety of pronunciations in a given day. I'm getting my first piece of work published soon and have a different last name in mind, a unique but simple British family name that has fallen out of use. I was just wondering if any academics here on AH have experience writing under a name other than their own, and if there had been problems with attribution etc?

Or would a captain have to jump through legal hoops, fill out forms, and all that? Additionally, were there restrictions on who could buy cannons (merchantmen, privateers, etc.)?

I remember hearing this during History class but I am having trouble finding it online. Basically it was something along the lines of the government wanting to stage an attack where a "Russian" shooter would kill about 20 people - this create support for the war with the Soviet Union, but JFK was against the idea.

Thanks

I know slavery was a major debate and even slave owning founding fathers (I know at least of Jefferson specifically) knew it couldn't last and would be the greatest test of the republic. Was there any serious debate on taking the opportunity to do away with it or phase it out then?

I'm currently writing a little screenplay set in rural Ireland in the 1920's, the main character is a member of the R.I.C, and I was just curious to whether they would have been more likely to smoke a pipe, cigars, cigarettes ect.

I'm guessing most wouldn't have the knowledge specifically for Ireland but even what was the most popular in England or the continent would be great.

I know it's a very broad topic and you can feel free to recommend something that is a bit more specific. I'm just beginning to really get into history and I'd like to start with this.

What pope saw the largest amount of growth from their first day till their last(rip pope)? In either percentage or just raw numbers?