I find it hard to believe they would have supported the slave states

[deleted]

I know it's ephemeral, but it's bothering me now someone said it was a shortening of "inmate", which I have doubts over.

When did "mate" become a thing, and how?

I have a general idea that there was a considerable amount of conflict in the late antique Roman empire over whether Christ had one nature, or separate divine and human natures, and this conflict was widespread throughout society.

To me, this seems like a pretty arcane theological point. Why was it such a big deal? Why did anyone who wasn't a theologian care? Or was it limited to relatively few elites?

My only good point of comparison is the disputes that led to the Protestant Reformation, but there there are obvious reasons for conflict, in that Luther was challenging the authority of the Church.

It may be that I'm misinformed on the historical background, in which case I'd appreciate being corrected!

My knowledge on this theory itself is pretty lacking; my only experience with it was from a single biblical studies class. The basis of it was more or less that the book of Revelation is just one big metaphor for the Judean revolt in 66 AD and more specifically Rome's stopping of it.

I was wondering if this theory was a purely modern one or if this was actually something that Roman scholars of the bible might have believed. As a secondary question, if they did subscribe to this theory, how did they negotiate it with their Roman citizenship?

As a Brit, I never learned about the US Civil War, so could someone just run through the basics of what happened for me, like what caused it, what were the major battles like, why these battles were important and what ended the war. Thank you :) EDIT: Anyother information you think is important is welcomed.

Is it:

1. That Tiananmen massacre was completely made up.

Or

2. The massacre didn't happen the way commonly thought.

Or

3. People who say the massacre didn't happy are wrong.

[deleted]

[deleted]

I know some areas have probably had an Arabic majority for a long time, like the Arabian Peninsula. I also know that other groups exist in the Middle East, like Persians, Turks, Kurds, etc.

From what I've read, though, Arabs are the largest ethnic group in West Asia. Have they always been a conspicuously large, if not a majority, even in Biblical times? Or did their population swell only after the conquests of Islam?

In areas that don't have an Arab majority (Turkey, Iran), does a significant amount of the population have any Arab blood?

[deleted]

Hello historians, on the topic of Marvel's Thor movies having a black Heimdall and a black Valkyrie, I wondered if, back when the nordic mythology was at its best (Which if I'm not terribly mistaken was around 700-1000 AD), was there any black people in Scandinavia. If there were, either in Scandinavia or just known to the vikings, were they slaves? Were they treated equally?

Thanks!

I've heard two distinct narratives of the Gallipolli campaign.

1. Churchill, in order to start a second front and use a bunch of second-rate pre-dreadnought battleships that were just rusting away cause they were obsolete, put forward the plan of using them to force the straits of the Dardanelles as they were too weak to fight the German north sea fleet, but might be strong enough to fight shore artillery and shell Constantinople. If the ships were lost, oh-well, they were obsolete anyway, if they succeeded, it might knock the ottomans out of the war.

But when the warships were blasted by mines and shore-batteries, old-school admirals overly attached to them for emotional reasons insisted on mounting a land campaign to save them, the exact thing the battleships were deployed to try and avoid, and the tail ended up wagging the dog.

2. Churchill, in his mad desire to get a second front, massively underestimated the Ottomans and deployed troops to the Gallipolli penninsula thinking he could sweep them aside but due to delay, poor supply/command, and underestimation of the enemy it got horrifically bogged down, while the navy only lent him second-rate ships for the expedition because they knew a boondoggle when they saw it.

I've heard these two wildly diverging accounts of the Gallipolli campaign, which is closer to the truth?

Edit: This is probably the most upvoted question on this sub that has no answer.

Edit 2: 2000 upvotes, still no clear answer. Got gold for the first time though! Thanks stranger!

and/or how unified is it politically?

this is all inspired by my digging in an attempt to create a solid badhistory post about the superhero tv show legends of tomorrow which sets a brief scene in 821 AD in "Tintangel England" w/ a ten year old boy king. Ended up having a hard time figuring out who would be ruling and the bounds of Wessex's political control at various points

Put more simply; did the Second World War have a direct impact on Army's football success in the mid-40s?

[deleted]

I'm referring to the fact/myth that supposedly the women in these stories were raped some way or the other and had many other atrocities done to them mainly by their saviors (the princes).

I just, for some reason, find it hard to believe. Is there any source on this? To me it seems that it's just a myth somebody made up on the internet and everybody just believes it beacause it's fun to believe something like that :/

I'm sorry if this type of a question doesn't belong here. I hope I'm not breaking the rules.

Brazil went through major economic growth during the period, but how effective was it for the day-to-day lives of some Brazilian living in a rural town? Wiki notes "At first, there was intense economic growth, due to economic reforms, but in the later years of the dictatorship, the reforms had left the economy in shambles, with soaring inequality and national debt" so there was obviously a huge downside and crash of some sort in the end (80s'), but did the rural communities ever experience the growth in the first place, or did it actually hurt them from the outset, with increased migration to urban areas?

[1970s] - [Brazil] - [Rural Life]

And, if Allie airstrikes were so damaging , why not relocate to obscure distant parts of their empire?

This may be a stupid question but I've always wondered if the connections such as the destruction of our bombs on their cities and now we are strong allies with the U.S in charge of defending them now.