It seems that following their migration into the Middle East from Central Asia, Turkish elites disproportionately exercised political control compared to the ethnic composition of the lands they ruled (which were mostly populated by Iranian and Arabs). To give a few examples, the Mamluk, Seljuq and Timurid states were all lead by Turkish elites with mostly non-Turkish populations. This trend also extends into the Early Modern period for the Ottomans, Safavids and Mughals.

Does anyone know any proposed reasons for the disproportionate success of these groups? It's a question that's been bugging me for a while, so I'm very grateful for any responses.

I'm interested in how the countries were formed and the wars happening on the continent. Thanks in advance for any help.

There's a lot of speculation about this but what are the options credible historians consider?

English is not my first language and I come from a place in Europe where the African communities come directly from Africa in the last 20 or so years, meaning their experience is vastly different from your average North American black person. I apologize if I offend, I don't quite know how best to phrase this question.

In world history, so literally everywhere, slavery has been prominent for a very long time. In fact it is still taking place all over the world. In Europe, Northern Africa, and the Near East there was legal slave trade up until the 19th century, in various forms. Frequently you would have whites enslaving whites. Blacks enslaving blacks. Arabs enslaving Persians. Ottomans enslaving Russians. And so on and so forth. Everyone was enslaving everyone, so to speak.

But currently this isn't something that's really brought up in any debates about segregation, racism, discrimination. There are surely a large number of people across these regions whose ancestors came to that country as slaves over the last few hundred years. Even in Europe when we talk about racism against black people slavery isn't brought up.

Yet in America this is still a hot-button issue, it would appear anyways. Please correct me if I'm wrong. From what I read in the news there appears to be articles about African slaves and its impact on modern African-American communities, reparations, and all sorts of things. It's still a significant part of the debate.

Is there some historical reason for why this is the case? I did read the FAQ on slavery but I don't think I found a good answer in there.

I would like to know the industrial/economic reasons.

Maybe it's too specific of a question, but I'm not having much success in finding accounts/records from ships - naval or commercial - that may have been deployed in the Hiroshima Bay area at the time of the bombing.

I've found plenty of ground zero stories, bomber cockpit stories, nearby city stories - but not a single source or damage report from the waters.

(It might very well be that there isn't an English text of information available - Japanese text would still be appreciated and useful.) Thanks in advance.

[deleted]

I hear most people say that he was an honorable leader who did many good things for the people, can you give some examples of why people consider him to be such a great ruler?

During the second half of the 19th century and first half of the second, I have seen no mention of mercenaries fighting in the major conflicts of Europe. I'd love to know what happened to mercenaries (if anything) during this period of immense change in Europe.

Long time lurker so dunno how this works, but X-Post from /r/askreddit :o

By this I of course don't mean simple national pride, but in the existence of distinct 'nations' of people going back deep into history, instead of modern imagined communities.

Does anyone have experience with this? It's obviously a sensitive subject for many people.

I'm not at all familiar with the history of North African states during this period, but wouldn't the New World be a good place for Morocco to expand? Were they too busy getting their shit kicked in by Spain and Portugal to afford it? Was the threat of war with the Iberian peninsula enough to scare the kingdom?

At any point between the Treaty of Paris and the War of 1812, was there ever serious thought in Britain put towards either taking the Colonies back, or at least fighting a war with the new United States?

[deleted]

Was it personal preference or did it vary by region?

As I understand it, they both stored and ate their food salty.

If the Ashikaga Shogunate treats the Emperor as a figurehead, and now Nobunaga has puppeted both the Emperor and the Shogun, what was the use of his continuous support of the Shogun? How did the benefit to his name of supporting the Shogun differ from that of supporting the Emperor?

As we all know: iron rusts. Which is quite a major disadvantage compared to bronze and other metals.

So, what evidence is there regarding methods of slowing or stopping the rusting process? One would want their steel tool or weapon to last as long as possible, so what are the techniques that are used most widely? This question can apply to any type of metal that rusts or otherwise degrades over time.

Thank you for you help.

I have a US army wool overcoat with rank insignias that display the rank of private. However the rank itself has a red border that encompasses the entire rank. What does this mean?