I have been curious for a while now about the history of Persia, but cannot find satisfying books. I'm interested in the continuous history of Persia from antiquity to the 15th century as a civilization and geopolitical entity. An introductory book basically. Preferably written by scholars.

Any suggestions?

My middle school students asked me this when we talked about the Civil Rights Movement and MLK, and I realized I hadn't been taught much about how Hispanics fit into the white vs black society we discuss in relation to the Civil Rights Movement. I know some about Cesar Chavez and the United Farm Workers movement, but just learning about that piece of Hispanic history suggests that most Hispanics in the US in the 60s were farm workers. That seems too simplistic.

I think the question I'm trying to get at is, in social interactions with white Americans, and in the eyes of the law, were Hispanics considered second class citizens to the same degree as African-Americans during this time period?

It has never been satisfactorily explained why thousands of ordinary people were ready to suffer persecution, even death, for the proposition that the incarnate Christ was either in (en) or derived from (ek) two natures, but they were certainly convinced that their opponents were gravely in error in either dividing or confusing the person of the one Christ [...]And then, just as mysteriously as theological fervour had started, so it died down. Or so it seems because no more ecclesiastical histories were written after the year 600. Monothelitism, which was but a pale continuation of Monophysitism inspired by political considerations, was laid to rest by the council of 680. That was the last of the ‘noble’ heresies. The issue of Iconoclasm, which was artificially inflated into a Christological heresy, was in reality concerned with observance, i.e. cultus, and that in itself was indicative of a new development: Byzantine Christianity had reverted to being a religio in the Roman sense.

What are some theories that could help explain the question posed in this quote (in italics)?

Also, where intense religious feelings/experiences in general come from? How much truth is in the claim that religion is basically politics in disguise?

I was watching the directors commentary on an episode of Mad Men, one where Roger has a heart attack, in the commentary one of the writer said that Ambulances in the early sixties basically hoped you'd still be alive by the time you got to the hospital. Obviously this changed into the kind of care you get now but when was this change made? What was the main cause for the change and who made it?

according to Chris Matthews he stayed in the white house for lunch after the inauguration and as he was eating people came in and replaced all of Carter's art work, furniture and family photos with Reagan's stuff

Curious if anyone has insight on President's that may have struggled financially post-White House. I'm sure most were rich enough to be living luxurious lifestyles but was wondering if there was an odd man out. This thought was sparked by the Clintons "struggling" relatively speaking according to Hillary. Thanks!

I am looking to do an undergraduate dissertation a certain aspect of Hitler's rise to power. I was initially interested to write about the British press and their reaction to his ascension to the chancellorship 1932-33. However it seems as if this is already covered in: "A Mirror of Nazism : British Opinion and the Emergence of Hitler, 1929-1933" by Brigitte Granzow from the 1960s.

I was just wondering if there are any other niche topics within his rise that may potentially be interesting to study?

Thanks

If this is the wrong sub, please point me in the right direction. Thanks.

The inevitable has happened, the internet has failed me. I've come to you all for help!

Here is what I know, he was running a sugar cane plantation in Anjouan Comoros. I can't find a picture or any information about him once he joined the U.S. Navy. There is speculation he might have began his own postal service while in Anjouan possibly around 1904. I'm curious for any information you can help me find.

Many Thanks in advance.

Were territories not subject to federal law and constitution?

Did he, or the other Tudors, ever plan on sending explorers there to compete with Spain & Portugal?

Edward VII had a battleship, King George V had two battleships named after him, and HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Duke of York were named after the future King Edward VIII and George VI, and were completed under their old names during the reign of George VI. It feels strange to me to break this pattern with George VI. I understand that Battleships and Fleet Carriers were constructed during World War 2, but why were none never named HMS King George VI?

From wiki article on Philip II of France in the section 'Battle of Bouvines, 1214'. Full paragraph given for context.

Basically, Count of Flanders refused to join Philip in his war against King John of England, and so Philip was given papal permission to punish Flanders (ironically, after the papacy had said it would be a sin to declare war on King John).

"The French fleet, reportedly numbering some 1,700 ships,[25] proceeded first to Gravelines and then to the port of Dam. Meanwhile, the army marched by Cassel, Ypres, and Bruges before laying siege to Ghent.[25] Hardly had the siege begun when Philip learned that the English fleet had captured a number of his ships at Dam and that the rest were so closely blockaded in its harbor that it was impossible for them to escape. After having obtained 30,000 marks as a ransom for the hostages he had taken from the Flemish cities he had captured, Philip quickly retraced his steps to reach Dam. It took him two days, arriving in time to relieve the French garrison, but he discovered he could not rescue his fleet. He ordered it to be burned to prevent it from falling into enemy hands, then he commanded the town of Dam to be burned to the ground as well. Determined to make the Flemish pay for his retreat, in every district he passed through he ordered that all towns be razed and burned, and that the peasantry be either killed or sold as slaves.[25]"

Is there some kind of a reliable field that studies history comparatively or as a way of prediction?

Thanks in advance.

I recently listened to Dan Carlin's Hardcore History episode about nuclear weapons. In it, he mentions that Nixon once said this during the Watergate Scandal:

"I could leave this room, and in 25 minutes, 70 million people would be dead."

What is the context of this quote? Could a President give the order to unleash nuclear weapons even if there was no threat to the United States? What if a President is not in his right mind?

So as far I understand, the term third Reich comes from

1st Reich: Holy Roman Empire

2nd Reich: German Empire

3rd Reich: Nazi Germany

But how does it make sense to count HRE as 1st of anything? Wasn't the whole point of HRE to claim the prestige and legitimacy of the original Roman Empire?

You could say that they are only counting German Empires, but HRE was a Charlemagne's creation, and hence at least partially French, whom Germans saw as a natural enemy. Not to mention the Italians and Czechs who were at times part of the empire.

I get that Nazis had very selective, flexible, and delusional understanding of history. But their choice of 1st and 2nd Reich makes no sense.

I wish I could get more specific, but if I could I probably would've found him myself. I have a lot of maybes that may help someone find him or remember him: -May have been a Nazi -May have driven a Horch car through Africa (This one is the one I know is the most important piece of the puzzle) -May have written a misguided book about Africa and Africans in general

Anyone have any names for a guy like this? It's not Rommel and its not Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck. Im very frustrated here.

[deleted]