[deleted]

Is the birth of a child named Yeshua (Jesus) in Bethlehem around 0 C.E. generally accepted by historians or not.

Addendum: is the crucifixion of this Yeshua (Jesus) around 30 C.E. generally accepted?

This always seemed odd to me. How powerful was Soviet propaganda that it was able to convince North Koreans that they needed to fight what was essentially (and most likely literally) their family to the South? What was it that North Koreans thought they were fighting for? Was there an equivalent political conditioning by the US in South Korea?

Basically just the title. I don't have a direct source at hand for Newton himself (its just something several professors have said in conversation), but I do know for sure that Kant refers to Newton in this way in the Third Critique ( 47, 5:308):

Everything that Newton expounded in his immortal work on the principles of natural philosophy... can still be learned, but one cannot learn to write inspired poetry

*Edit: Meant to write "heard" not "read" in the title.

The Soviet Union floundered hard against Finland but was able to wipe the floor so to speak with Japan in the years 1939 and 1940. Why was there such a big difference? The Soviet Union, or Japan, or maybe even Finland?

I'm basically asking about all of the Caribbean, but I'll just use Cuba for the example. When Europeans came over, I heard that they wiped out 90% of the natives. Are today's Cubans just people of Spanish and African descent or are there still some people with native blood around?

I'm writing a history paper, but I'm not asking for direct critiques. But I'm concerned that I'm just summarizing different sources. I try to include as much analysis and ideas of my own, but it seems like the evidence does most of the talking. I know studying history involves taking many sources into account, and that "opinion" can't take precedent over evidence, but it feel like a 8th grade book report that just summarizes the information I've found.

How much should one rely on the information they find, and how much should they include their own interpretation and extrapolation of this evidence?

Were there any organizations such as military intelligence, signal, etc., or were soldiers all immediately assigned basic infantry positions?

i've been getting a lot of very negative views regarding general MacArthur from world war 2 and the korean war. From what i understand is that he had a stereotypical west pointer ego and had a reputation for poorly-thought decisions, at one point requesting permission to conduct nuclear strikes in korea.

is the hate well deserved? why?

Recently I learned that China and Rome had contact throughout a part of their existence. The Great Wall of China was being build as early as the 7th century BC, and Hadrian's wall started construction in 122 AD. According to Wikipedia the first direct contact between the empires (with envoys and such) was in 166 AD, but perhaps through indirect contact the idea of a long stretching wall to keep out invaders could have been imported from China. What are your thoughts?

Considering how other revolutions were fostered by foreign powers, I was wondering if the unification of Italy was supported by any other nation.

The French expedition in Mexico is almost never spoken of in France (from personal experience from primary/high school to Master's degree with about a quarter of my classes being in History).

Does anyone here know a bit more about this and wish to share?

Cheers,

TGLAF

I'm curious about the role slavery played when the founding fathers were writing the constitution and creating the early US government. Mainly, I've heard a lot recently about slavery being one of the reasons the electoral college was created.

Growing up in the US, we learned about slavery in the context of the triangle trade, the underground railroad and the Civil War, with the occasional details of its brutality thrown in. So now, I'm more interested in learning about what role, if any, the institution of slavery played in the founding of the United States and the institutions we have today as part of the Federal Government.

Thanks!

The USSR launched the first satellite in orbit, the first man in space, and first probe to the Moon. Despite this, NASA managed to get the first man on the moon before the USSR.

How did NASA "come from behind" to surpass the Soviet efforts? What let the American program get ahead? Was it luck or was the US in some way better?

Additionally, why did the Apollo missions effectively end the Space Race?

Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask, but I thought it may be the best community to help me. Churchill had a high number, but I can't seem to find anyone with more.

Thanks!

I'm currently reading A History of Venice by John Julius Norwich. Unless I'm understanding incorrectly, he seems to imply that Justinian used Theoderic's belief in Arianism to justify his invasion of Italy. However, Justinian's campaign began in 535, and Theoderic died in 526. What happened to Italy during those 9 years?

Edit: Meant to say what but who works too