I watched a documentary about how Christopher Columbus 'discovered' Cuba and there were Cuban natives there, and it got me wondering how on earth they got there. Could anyone help?

While Prussia is located in modern day Poland (West Slavic country), it had been a part of Germany -or whatever it was called- for a long time.

So is it historically and linguistically Germanic, Slavic, or is it Baltic (As it's close to the Baltic countries)?

The rise of the Sassanian dynasty in the first half of the third century is often mentioned as an event that had a major impact on the history of the Roman Empire. Reason being that the Sassanid Empire was a more powerful state than the previous Parthian Empire and so Rome had to rethink its defense strategy in the eastern frontier.

Indeed, the Sassanid under Shapur I had many successes against the Romans, going as deep into roman territory as Antioch. Those campaigns are the evidence that is used to defend Sassanid superior military power compared to Parthia. They had more success against Rome therefore they were better at waging war.

However, as Adrian Goldsworthy notes, the Sassanid and Parthians were essentially the same people, only ruled by a different house. And so it's expected that their armies wouldn't be that different in aftermath of the fall of the Parthians as the rulling house.

So my question is, do we know how the early Sassanid army looked like (say before IV century)? How similar or different it was to the earlier Parthian army? What tatics it use and stuff like that?

Gratitude.

The knight armor from the game "for honor" comes from which era and is it proper representation of war in that era?

Cca 15th century? What about cca 17th?

I'm currently reading "Fierce Patriot: The Tangled Lives of William Tecumseh Sherman", by Robert L. O'Connell - it follows Sherman throughout his whole life, with his military career as a vital component.

One thing that I'm uncertain of, however, is how good a tactician Sherman was (perhaps because I'm not yet finished the book). O'Connell seems to mainly praise Sherman's strategic skills, but far less is said about his tactical skills, leaving me unsure of what to think.

Lately I have seen a few memes refencing it and am interested in how far it goes back, where it started, etc.

Any info is greatly appreciated!

I keep hearing this assertion that as a colonial power the US was allegedly the most benevolent of the bunch, launching free public education, paving roads & building modern infrastructure, and even teaching muh democracy to the locals. (And in the Filipinos' case the Americans were oh-so-kind that they even willingly planned Philippine independence & granted it in 1946! Something they didn't even do for Puerto Rico and the others.)

Were there any other colonial empires (British, French, Dutch, German, Spanish, Portuguese, Japanese, etc.) who were this "kind" to any of their colonies, in theory or in practice?

PS. By "any of their colonies" I mean the ones where they came in primarily as occupiers of some kind, not as permanent settlers—in other words, not settler colonies, like colonial America, Australia, or Canada … and just on the record, I do think this perception of the US being a benevolent coloniser is at the very least rather overrated, as it still is not above underhanded, colonial-in-all-but-name practices, like total educational indoctrination, invasions & commercial domination in Latin America, etc.

[deleted]

I can't recall if this us is included in /r/all or not (I think it is but can't be certain) and wonder if the mods were approached about being filtered into the new sub.

Im currently reading the Bible for multiple reasons and as I go through Genesis circumcision is shown to be highly important. In the story "The defiling of Dinah" an entire town is destroyed because someone with an uncircumcised penis had sex with a follower of God. I was just wondering if there is broader historical context here, or even an answer wrapped in theology.

It's a well known fact that when Columbus arrived in the Americas, he introduced diseases that ended up killing millions of natives. The Vikings, who also would have been exposed to these European diseases, established colonies in the new world several hundred years before Columbus. Why did it take until Columbus for these diseases to infect native Americans?

For the first time today I encountered a claim that the Soviet nuclear program was made possible by an American security failure. Is there any evidence to back this up?

The following is from Mary Geiter's "The Restoration Crisis and the Launching of Pennsylvania, 1679-81":

In April 1679 Charles made the first move to neutralize the opposition by forming a new Privy Council with the Earl of Shaftesbury as its president. Although the news was greeted with "joyful bonfires" in the City, the verdict had still to be given as to "whether we are landing upon New Atlantis or only in the view of old Brasile."

The footnote for this phrase states it was found on the back of a list of names for the new Privy Council.

What exactly is meant here by New Atlantis and old Brasile? I can gather that new Atlantis is hopeful of some ideal that this council will bring about, but old Brasile doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. My guess is "same old shit," but why that specific phrase?

Not necessarily to the extent of large positions such as the French Maginot line, but more like places on the outskirts of Aachen or other important rural positions in towns/villages

I'm an undergraduate History major beginning to start thinking about my senior thesis major and one thing that I am particularly interested in is anti-colonial movements and how those rejections of the colonial are imagined/conceptualized. I've done some reading of Frantz Fanon writing about the effects of colonialism on the colonized individual and would like other reading similar to that but also works that more explicitly imagine the decolonized future, both in terms of the state, the nation, and the individual. I am particularly interested in ideas like Cuba's New Man and the transformation of the colonial subject after 'liberation.' If any of you have any readings that could introduce me more to this topic, both in terms of primary readings, historical analyses, and works of theory, I would be very thankful.