In the western world there was for a time a rather dominant view that darker skinned, or African people were inferior to white Europeans.

Have there ever been similar racist views in Asia, to say the far south east Asians or Indians who had quite darker skin to their northern counterparts? Was there slavery or other actions based on that idea?

The blacksmiths on the show are usually pressed for time, but towards the end of every show, the two finalists are tasked with making an ancient historical weapon, in their own shop, that they are given five days to do. I'm by no means a blacksmith, but 5 days seems like a fair amount of time to craft any given weapon. How was this feasible on a large scale, such as when an ancient Greek army needed to be outfitted with swords to fight a war? How long would it take for, say, 500 Xiphos Sword to be made in time for battle? How much manpower was needed to craft the right amount of weapons in time?

I may be totally off here but it seems as though every continent on Earth has developed swords. They all look different but in essence are still swords. Same with spears, arrows, etc. Is there some common ancestor here? Was the first sword made and then copied or did all these different societies come up with the same idea completely independent of one another?

It seems like from what I'm reading that the chancellors would resign for odd reasons. Can't get a majority, resign. Schleicher told me to resign, resign. Schleicher resigns.

Any ideas?

Have traces of them been found*

Part of Nixon's foreign policy was to try and trick 2nd world countries into believing that Nixon was a "madman" and that he may react irrationally to provocation. It seems like that would be a hard sell if at the same time he's reassuring American citizens that he wouldn't trigger a nuclear war. How was Nixon able to appear calm and rational to American while appearing terrifyingly irrational to our enemies?

For example (I was taught) that many industrialists wanted a closed market (like Cuba and Philippines) to sell off excess. Is this true? Did it have a measurable impact?

As the title states.. I have always seen in movies how the captain of a vessel has the authority to wed a couple. Where does this tradition begin and why? Do they have to be "ordained" in the same way a minister, etc would be, or does the authority come solely from his position on board the ship?

Hello!

I'm researching for a paper and was wondering if anyone could recommend me any primary material to help with my research. I am only just starting but have seen some RAF combat reports and other air ministry documents as well. If anyone knows of key primary archived material that can help in understanding the battle that would be appreciated.

If they're free that would be great as digital copies of the National archive can be quite expensive but I'm open to anything.

Thanks!

In the Dumas classic *The Vicomte de Bragelonne,*he writes about Monck's siege of London:

Monk (sic) pronounced this declaration, supported by fifty thousand swords, to which, that same evening, were united, with shouts of delirious joy, the five thousand inhabitants of the good city of London. At length, at the moment when the people, after their triumphs and festive repasts in the open streets, were looking about for a master, it was affirmed that a vessel had left the Hague, bearing King Charles II. and his fortunes.

From Chapter 31. Monk reveals Himself.

So was the population only 5000 or was this the City of London and not the whole metropolis?

A direct copy, maybe with a German gun and engine but keep everything else more or less the same?

I've always been lead to believe that Romans viewed retreat with disgrace, and many Roman military commanders (Varus, Brutus+Cassius, Antony etc) committed suicide after devastating defeats. Varro encouraged Rome to abandon Fabian strategy and attack Hannibal, left his fellow Consul to die on the field, and then survived. I've heard the regular soldiers who fought their way out at Cannae were sent to Sicily to await a dangerous military mission so they could die with honor. How did Varro not only return to Rome but continue to serve in major posts?

Did the prevalence of opium addiction rise to the level of an epidemic among the average Chinese of the time? Was a large percentage of the population addicted to opium, or was opium's significant status in trade just a product of the upper or upper-middle class Chinese spending large amounts of money on opium? Were there homeless opiate addicts begging and sleeping on the street, or was opium smoked primarily in parlors and aristocratic circles? Do we have any accounts of any significant governmental or cultural figures using opium for recreation or becoming desperate addicts?

Especially if they weren't actively selling it internationally like Egypt -> Rome. Would they resell it to millers and bakers (and what would they receive from millers or bakers in return ((if they didn't use coinage)), if so?)

Did it all get eaten?

Stored in case of famines?

I suppose a better way of asking would be in what way did the French Resistance inform their strategy. Were they expecting the Algerians to take a page out of Charles de Gaulle's book, for instance?

Not sure if this questions works here. But. Having trouble distinguishing between accents and dialects. A friend said she was grasping Spanish and catalonian and said both were pretty damn similar(95% was thrown around). I reckon there are some fucked English speakers who understand each other less. What's the deal? I looked it up Google and got no satisfactory answer.

1 Comment

Hello, I am currently in a historian interterm and was wondering if an Ostrogothic army consisted of any serious infantry? We are basically investigating old battlefield strategies and armies, so I wanted to share my question with you.

It's to my understanding that passenger services across the ocean didn't exist at the time. The title mentions non-merchant, non-military travelers but I suppose I mean to encompass anybody whose occupation doesn't already give them a reason and means to travel.

So if such a person decided, for whatever reason, to leave their home country, cross the Atlantic and reach the other side of the world, would that be feasible? And if so, how would they do it?

I'm researching a bit of family history based on information which I believe are from church records in Finland, however not having seen the records myself I can't be sure. What I have states that one of my ancestors (b. 1544 in present-day Savonia in Finland) was a footsoldier ("nihti" in Finnish,  from "knekt" in swedish) from 1591 to 1604, and then a "knaapi" (väpnare/squire) from 1609, serving in the "troops of Jacob De La Gardie" and perishing in "a campaign in Russia" in 1610.

So my question is, what did these roles actually mean in terms of responsibility, rights, employment and status in Sweden? How did you become a soldier? What did it take to become a "väpnare" and what does that mean? Do these terms actually reflect military "rank" or social/economic status?

A follow-up question: Presuming that this information is correct, he was also quite old when doing this, 47-60 at his time as a soldier and a whopping 66 as a squire when he died in 1610. Is this plausible or is my information just likely to be incorrect? What was the typical military career like at the time, just in terms of age and possible promotions in status?

I've read that when a new Pope is elected, but before white smoke signaling the new papacy is sent up, the new Pope is lead to the Room of Tears to read a letter from the former Pope and he is ritualistically "crowd surfed" amongst the clergy to guarantee a man has been elected (I know the story behind that one lol). The Catholic Church has never denied that other secretive ceremonies also take place to signal the reign of a new Pope. Are any of these ceremonies known of outside of the Vatican? Are there any ceremonies the church won't comment on, yet we can be positive occur? If so, what is the most logical reason for keeping these ceremonies secret, and can we use what history has shown us about the election of a Pope to draw any hard conclusions?