Anti-Judaism was around for a long time. Jews were vilified and seen as evil conniving people. What changed? Why was it now coined anti-semitism? What was new for it to be called something different?

I recently watched a documentary speculating about the nature of the "Sea People" that the ancient Egyptians fought, and suggested that they were a conglomeration of mercenary forces that conquered the Minoan and Hittite civilizations and severely wounded Egypt. It claimed that these Sea People are responsible for the Bronze Age collapse.

This explanation triggered my "BS" meter as way too simplistic and seemingly fantastic. It made too good of a story for a 1-hour documentary to be true. But I am so far from a scholar on the Bronze Age that I wouldn't even know where to begin on trying to understand the complexities of modern scholarship about the Bronze Age collapse.

Is anyone here able to offer a snapshot of the current state of scholarship on the Sea People and the Bronze Age Collapse?

I know they're two completely different situations, but in the Irish struggle for independence there was a saying that "England's difficulty is Ireland's opportunity" in relation to WWI. Was there any similar kind of sentiment in an American context?

There seem to be a few sources suggesting that intermarriage between Normans and Saxons became common post-1066, and that eventually it became difficult to differentiate between Normans and the free Saxons.

However, if most of the Saxons were dispossessed of their land holdings after the Norman invasion, why would the Norman aristocrats intermarry with them, being that they had nothing to gain from such a marriage?

Was this intermarriage mostly between lower-born Normans and Saxons?

Thanks for any help you can give me in regards to this question!

The current Crimean crisis stems from the fact that although Crimea was controlled by Ukraine (in 2014 anyway), it has historically always been controlled by Russia.

It seems like the current Crimean crisis could have been avoided entirely if Khrushchev didn't transfer Crimea to the Ukranian SSR in 1954.

I feel like this question has probably been asked before, but I cannot find it and perhaps my googling skills need work. Anyway, my question is in the title.

What was their party membership and essentially how prominent was this movement? Was their a notable amount of people sympathetic to the nazis in the years leading up to the war? After the war?

Furthermore, did anything ever become of the proposal?

I'm really interested in learning some of performance data for these type of airplanes.

How high could they fly? How fast could they fly? How many troops could they carry? What was their rate of climb per min? How far could they fly with one tank of fuel?

I'm doing an essay on whether they were genuine reformers and was wondering if anyone could point me to any archaeological evidence from the time (statues/mosaics that sort of thing!)

Note: If there isn't any then please do say because that is something I can discuss!

In Samuel Pepys' diary he writes that his recently deceased brother was "so negligent that he used to trust his servants with cutting out of clothes, never hardly cutting out anything himself;"

In Robert Chambers' Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, he writes that earth is "one of a series of eleven which revolve at different distances around the sun, and some of which have satellites in like manner revolving around them." James A. Second says that during this period the notion of a planet included things that today we now distinguish and term asteroids. So, my question is: Chambers seems to think the number eleven is proper and clear enough his readers should recognize it. Secord lists Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus (I presume) as seven among the eleven. What were the other four?

P.S., sorry for any typos, I'm on mobile omw to the HSS conference as we speak!

Apologise for the vague title I wasn't quite sure how to word it

A while ago I was reading a critique of current (post-cold war) defence expenditure and it was essentially arguing that some equipment (one example was the F-22 Raptor) is so costly and complicated that in a major conventional war (i.e. what they're ultimately designed for) they would prove to be useless.

I appreciate that with increasing sophistication, equipment costs etc will rise but I was just wondering what the military inflation rate was like over the course of the Cold war?

For example, relatively speaking, how many F-86 Sabres could I buy for one F-22 Raptor (i.e. two aircraft designed to take on the Soviet air force)?

Relatively speaking how much more expensive is 'modern' (i.e. Post-cold war) military equipment relative to its earlier equivalents e.g. F-86 vs. F-22?

Upvote what you liked. Submit things you liked and don't see here.

My city's leading mommy blogger just published a list of ALL the available productions of Nutcracker this season in the larger metro area, and it got me to thinking about how weird that is. It is unique for being one piece of art performed regularly in every major US city... that I wouldn't dream of going to myself without the requisite accessory, small antsy humans in dress-up clothes. There's no comparable opera or Broadway musical. Tchaikovsky presumably didn't compose the thing in the hopes that someday it would help sell little red velvet dresses and tiny bow ties. What happened to make it Baby's First High Art Performance?

Were the Nizari Ismaili Hashashin actually known for smoking large amounts of hashish, or was this a defamatory idea?

Sweden especially is prominent in European affairs up until the end of the 18th century.