I'm having a conversation with my dad and he made the claim that most of the scientific advancements that characterize the Islamic Golden Age were not made by Muslims, but rather by minority groups that lived in the Islamic World at the time.

This runs contrary to everything that I have heard about this time period, but I don't have the hard facts to substantiate my suspicions. And frankly, it kind of smacks of Western Chauvinism.

I know that there were definitely Jewish and Zoroastrian scientists in the Islamic World who made large contributions, but it seems ridiculous to assert that there weren't also Muslim scholars who made large advancements alongside them.

Could y'all please give me some more info on this to let me know whether my dad or I am more correct?

I've always wondered why line combat was used during the 18th century because it doesn't seem very effective, while it has some merit in usual warfare it just seems like unconventional warfare would probably win in all engagements against line combat.

I can see that it might be a defense against cavalry but it still doesn't seem like the best possible Choice.

Of course i don't know much about the 18th century or combat tactics of the 18th century, so i might have missed some important details.

was he leading the congregation in prayers? did they find it weird that their bishop was a teenager?

The two most prolific rifle cartridges in use by NATO are the 5.56x45mm (derived from a .22" cartridge) and the 7.76x51mm (derived from a .30" cartridge). The Russian 7.76x39mm is also derived from a .30" cartridge. However with the exception of the USA, all NATO nations use a metric system, and have for decades. Russia adopted the metric system in 1925.

So, why do all these nations use ammunition with "odd" measurements (in metric) derived from imperial measurements? Why is the 5.56x45mm not 5.6x45mm? Why is the .30 Russian not a 7.8x39mm round? Do the extra 40 microns really make that much of a difference in the performance of the firearm?

According to the producers, he actually recorded all his lines himself (as opposed to them just using the same voice software and getting an identical result) so evidently he must've been fine with making fun of himself in that way.

--

They Saved Lisa's Brain (1999):

Stephen Hawking: "Your theory of a donut-shaped universe is intriguing, Homer. I may have to steal it."

--

--

Anthology of Interest I (2000):

Nichelle Nichols: "It's about that rip in space-time that you saw."

Stephen Hawking: "I call it a Hawking Hole."

Fry: "No fair! I saw it first!"

Hawking: "Who is The Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?"

--

--

Fry: "...so then my chair tilted back and I almost fell into this freezer thingy."

Stephen Hawking: "I call it a Hawking Chamber."

--

--

Nichelle Nichols: "Wait. I'm getting an idea. What if Fry was supposed to get frozen?"

Stephen Hawking: "Yes. Shove him in the tube. It was my idea."

Hello all, first time poster.

I am in the process of developing my senior thesis and am hoping to pick your brains.

Professora Jiménez y Muro seems to have played a big role in the Mexican Revolution, even working along side Zapata. However, there is not much written on her.

Additionally- I am having a difficult time finding works written by her, (primary sources) any help in steering me in the right direction would be much appreciated!

I've seen it suggested that the Ottoman Empire almost entirely blocked trade from Asia to Europe, which served as an impetus for Europeans to try to find alternate routes to Asia and therefore, in the long run, the colonization of the Americas.

Is that true? Seems odd - why shut off trade with the Europeans instead of profiting off of it?

Would be great to find a collection of multiple first person accounts with some context. Documentary or book or whatever

I was doing some research on the Mayans and discovered there is a structure (or complex) in Chichen Itza called the nunnery. What role did these ‘nuns’, for I assume this is largely a colonial misrepresentation of the role, play in Mayan religion/politics?

The Catholic Church is often broadly thought of as a successor to the Western Roman Empire. That is, the influence of Rome over Western Europe didn’t die with the empire, but was sustained in a different form by the Roman Catholic Church.

But was that ancient influence still alive during the Wars of Religion when countries like France, Spain and Austria remained Catholic? Is modern Europe’s religious makeup a result of this influence? If so, in what way and why? Germany and Scandinavia, never part of the Empire, largely abandoned Catholicism. England also left Catholicism, but because it was nonetheless briefly part of the empire, retained so many essential characteristics of Catholicism in its own church.

There are some exceptions, of course, like Poland or Ireland, which were never part of the Empire, but are still largely Catholic.

Nonetheless, is it just pure coincidence that the geographical extent of the Roman Church’s influence over Europe today mirrors the historic borders of the Roman Empire?

Clarification: setting aside the Bible, do we have any historical sources that show when was the first time that the virgin birth was talked about? Was it already before Jesus' adulthood? Was it after he was baptized? After he started preaching? Was it in his lifetime, or after his death? Basically, what is the first known instance of someone actually saying 'Mary was a virgin' before the Bible?

I had a discussion about this in another sub and I and some others defend that ethnic discrimination already exists in all world, but race as a concept only start to exist in Colonial Americas. While others were saying that this is semantics and that some discrimination that existed, especially in East Asia, would also be considered racism that doesn't have correlation with Europe and their colonial endeavors.

Who were right? Racism is a thing that start to exist after Colonial Americas or this is just semantics and other ethnic discrimination can also be considered racism?

I was recently listening to the History of Rome podcast by Mike Duncan, and I started to notice that many emperors and important Roman figures were officially named Marcus Aurelius. For example, Claudius Gothicus' full name was Marcus Aurelius Claudius, Probus' was Marcus Aurelius Probus, and both Carus and his two sons were named Marcus Aurelius. None of them seem to have any familial connections to the actual emperor Marcus Aurelius. Was this simply a very common Roman name, or was it done in honour of the well-respected emperor?

I am looking for Primary Sources about Mark Antony and Cleopatra's relationships! Any help would be appreciated. I am researching the accuracy of the 1963 film Cleopatra.

Speaking to my French partner this morning, she told me everyone used to track the state of the economy by the price of a baguette (seriously, this is not me making fun). Right before France switched to the euro, apparently the price of a baguette was 1 franc. Then after the switch, it became 1 euro. But the value after the conversion 1 euro was about 15 francs. So a basic foodstuff suddenly cost 15x more than.

So how did European citizens handle the conversion switch and did it cause huge problems for citizens through the value disparity?

Hello,

I am looking for books or research papers that cover the attempt at revolution Che Guevara led in Bolivia for an essay im writing on why Castro and his follower succeed in Cuba but Che and his supporters failed in Bolivia, I know Che wrote the Bolivian diary and I have a copy of it but I was wondering if there are any history books that cover the event from a historians POV rather than a first hand account as my essay is a historiography based

I am speculating that it has something to do with the rise of affordable, mass-market air travel for leisure where families would pack heavy cases.

If I'm not mistaken, today, pilots use radar and GPS to identify friends, foe, where they are, and where they're going. But, somehow, pilots conducted operations in the Second World War without these tools. More impressively, they did this at night. I know radar had recently been invented around this time — the British implemented a radar system to confront German bombing missions as early as 1940. I assume radars followed the same trajectory as computers — starting off the size of a room, and eventually becoming much smaller. In WWII, radar was still in the "room phase," and aircraft therefore did not have them. So how did pilots carry out missions in WWII at night? How did pilots know where to fly? How could bombers identify targets on the ground? How did fighters identify adversaries to shoot down?

I also think this question requires us to additionally/specifically ask how operations were carried out vis-a-vis aircraft carriers. I read in John Keegan's The Second World War, that, because planes didn't have radar in WWII, pilots could simply get lost at sea if they were separated from their squadrons. And that could happen during the day. How on earth did naval aviators carry out operations at night?