I know that Italy was probably the most developed region during the late medieval area and during the Rennesiance, but I find it strange that they seemed to always be pawns to the Holy Roman Empire, Austria, France and other powers. It seems like they could have easily have been their own power, especially considering their cultural and scientific advances in that time period.

For context, on pages 214-217 Rodney Stark says this in a section of his book titled Dhimmi Culture.

To the extent that Arab elites acquired a sophisticated culture, they learned it from their subject peoples. As Bernard Lewis put it, without seeming to fully appreciate the implications, Arabs inherited "the knowledge and skills of the ancient Middle East, of Greece, of Persia and of India." That is, the sophisticated culture so offten attributed to Muslims (more often referred to as "Arabic" culture) was actually the culture of the conquered people- the Judeo-Christian-Greek culture of Byzantium, the remarkable learning of heretical Christian groups such as the Copts and the Nestorians, extensive knowledge from Zoroastrianism (Mazdean) Persia, and the great mathematical achievements of the Hindus (keep in mind the early and extensive Muslim conquests of India.) This legacy of learning, including much that had originated with the ancient Greeks, was translated into Arabic, and portions of it were somewhat assimilated into Arab Culture, but even after having been translated, this "learning" continued to be sustained primarily by the dhimmi populations living under Arab regimes. For example, the "earliest scientific book in the language of Islam" was a "treatise on medicine by a Syrian Christian priest in Alexandria, translated into Arabic by a Persian Jewish Physician" As in thus example, not only did most "Arab" science and learning originate with dhimmis they even did most of the translating into Arabic.

I know this passage is very long and the answers don't have to go point by point but I just want to know if the overall concept is accurate and to what degree?

In WWII, American soldiers commonly called Germans and Japanese as krauts and Japs. What did foreign soldiers call US soldiers?

How does Russia only have one aircraft carrier? It seems odd that an empire that large with a formidable military force would only have one.

(Apologies if this breaks the 20 year rule, but I'm assuming this has been a thing much longer than that.)

Did he fix them up and resell them or rented them out or?

To clarify, I am wondering about its astonishingly quick soread, at least as compared to other religions, and its wide reach, from the sultanates of West Africa to those of Indonesia.

Hello r/askhistorians, I did a search but did not come across the same question. It did say somewhere that this is the correct sub to ask about History studies, if this isn't correct, I'm sorry, please direct me to the correct sub.

I always had a deep love of history, but due to circumstances I studied Physical Therapy (MA). Right now I'm working part-time as a physical therapist, but I can't let go of the idea of studying History. I'm also quite bored at work and looking for some challenges in my life. Because I already have a Master's in a different field, I could do an abridged programme to get a BA in History.

However, I know the job market isn't great in this field, so I would probably do this out of interest only, and stay in my current job. (But you never know.. One can hope.) I do like the idea of working towards a degree, as opposed to just doing some home study out of interest.

Do you guys think this would be a good idea? Or is it just a waste of time and money, and it would be better to simply read about/study history on my own in my free time?

Maybe some of you were in the same situation?

People who studied History at college/university level at a later age: do you think it was worth it? Did it change your career?

Like when your wooly blankets give off sparks at night, or getting a small shock when touching things/other people when you've built up enough charge?

And also to have a larger population than virtually all countries in the world with longer histories, aside from China and India?

Most major navies had carriers (ex. USA, UK, Japan) and, as time progressed, weren't aircraft becoming more useful in the theatre of war? The Germans maintained a strong airforce, so why didn't they build carriers to further increase the range of air operations?

The Aden Emergency wasn't a conflict I was aware of prior to this week's AH theme, having somehow managed to sort of slide from the February 1963 coup in Iraq to the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in my modern middle east history!

So as far as my underestanding goes, one of the conditions upon which the Western powers agreed to the Munich treaty was that the remaining Czechoslovakian state would be guaranteed sovereignity and integrity of its new borders. Yet in March 39, barely half a year after the agreement, we see Wehrmacht marching into Prague and effectively annexing the entire country. What pretext did Hitler use for this? How did the Allied powers react, and why did they let Hitler get away with yet another act of agression and promise-breaking?