So having Italian heritage makes me very interested in Italian history, particularly during WWII where my grandpa fought and my nonna grew up. However my grandpa died before I was born so I never got the chance to get answers.

How did Mussolini and his fascist regime get into power and what was the general reaction of the public? How did they transition from the Axis to the Allies? What significant battles were fought by the Italians? What happened after Mussolini was ousted?

If anyone could answer any of these questions or provide further info it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

So Ive read in quite a few places. That Medusa was once a part of a three part goddess with Athena in North Africa. And that she had temples and priestesses that worshipped her and wore the gorgon masks. Saying that she represented death,rebirth and sexuality. This is until the greeks came and with a more patriarchal society took her down and killed her within the Perseus myth. Now this sounds like it makes sense (but I know that it doesnt necessarily make it so). Where ive read this has come from feminist,astrology, and Wiccan websites that dont list sources. I get the feeling theyre patching together different facts (and maybe some, not so much facts) to make a narrative that is appealing. So does anyone know if there is any truth to this ? Is there any substantial evidence of Medusa's origin ?

So in the UK there has been a review of anti-Semitism in the Labour party and plenty of suggestions that the far left in British politics has been tainted by anti-Semitism especially in anti-Zionist support for the Palestinian cause. By contrast the far right has, amongst many other things, characterised Bolshevism, and by extension Communism, as a Jewish conspiracy.

Considering how opposed these two political ideologies are, how did they both develop similar anti-Semitic elements?

Today Greece and Turkey have quite a heated national rivalry, not least because of the Cyprus issue, but to the best of my knowledge, Greece was one of the most stable and loyal taxpaying regions of the Ottoman Empire for more than three hundred years of its apex of power.

I know that the term "Turk" took on a religious significance during this period, but it also seems, from contemporary European texts, that foreign powers took a relatively monolithic view of the Ottoman behemoth before it started to fall apart. So I'm curious if a Greek in that period would be liable to be described as a Turk, or Turkish.

As a side question, I'm also curious whether North African, Egyptian and Levantine religious minorities would have been referred to as Arabs or an equivalent term equating them to other Arabic speakers between the period of early Islamic "Arabization" and the 19th century rise of modern ethnic and racial identities.

No agenda in asking this potentially controversial question, it just popped into my head that it would be interesting to know how medieval and early modern people used these words. Thanks!

How did the world get information about events in Paris during the Revolution and Reign of Terror? Was it all thru embassies or was there a press system reporting events?

From early buddhist sutras like the dhammapada to later, more elaborated phiolosophical texts like nagarjuna's Mūla-madhyamaka-kārikā verse is very often used in buddhist text. Whats the reason for this?Have any authors written explaining why they write in verse instead of prose? I can immagine oral transmission and ritual recitation as the reason for certain sutras being in verse, but what about more analytical works?

So I've listened to a lot of Beatles music and I've always been told they're probably the most influential band in history. But how exactly did they influence music and social-economic issues? Can we still see their influence today and if so, how?

This is something I've been thinking about for a while now. I realise that in the the eastern half of the Mediterranean Greek was the lingua franca, and in the west this was Latin, and that the first Christian manuscripts were in Greek, but still.

Considering Christians believe Jesus is the son of god, and that Jesus spoke Aramaic, why didn't Aramaic become an important language in Christianity? Do we have any Christian manuscripts in Aramaic, and is there an explanation why the holy book of the Christians was first written down in Greek rather than the language the book's main character spoke?

Thanks!

Hi!

I'm always confused by the use of the word Dynasty for the official (or historiographical) name for a state or realm.

Is this purely a Historian's Convention and used because we have the benefit of hindsight to see Dynastic Unions or Personal Unions?

The most egregious example would be the historical China, where we use the word dynasty not only to refer to the ruling family, but also the period, and the state which the family governed (and I guess the subsequent culture). Does this mean that the one dynasty's state was that vastly different politically and socio-organisationally that we have to use the word 'Dynasty' to refer to the different state and society that emerged under each ruling family?

One of the most obvious examples I can take from European history is the Hapsburg Dynasty. Would you honestly consider the various realms (united under the head of the dynasty) a single state? And if so, is "Hapsburg Dynasty" truly the best name we can use to call the state itself (although some sources 'Hapsburg Monarchy' or 'Hapsburg Empire' or 'Danubian Monarchy') as well?

Anyone who can shed some light or give a good primer on this? When do we use the word 'Dynasty' to refer to a state, and when do we use any of the other words (such as Empire, Monarchy, Kingdom, etc.) Basically, I'm confused by the nomenclature we use for various states/realms as a whole.

I've always wondered about that. Did they do something 3500 years ago that just kinda snowballed into them being Europe's scapegoat? Even today they are the main source of all of the world's problems according to many, many conspiracy theorists. My question is: Why?

I was watching a BBC documentary on the topic and it claimed that there were 50 000 American/U.N. casualties and half a million Chinese casualties. I looked it up but found no answers. (I found figures for Chinese deaths ranging from 100 000-500 000) What I did glean was that the Chinese military was heavily underequipped, even compared to the initial American invasion forces previously stationed in Japan, but were there other reasons? The documentary made it seem as if the Chinese strategy was of a much more potent nature than the Americans expected, yet the Chinese lost many more. Thank you!

I heard there was some controversy when a black man portrayed Hanibal in barbarians rising on the history channel, and that he actually wasn't black. Do we know for sure what race he is?

I was reading about night fighters and Airborne Interceptors in the Battle of Britain, and I was wondering about their wider use during the war.

• I know radar was mostly a new technology, was it mainly the Allies that employed it?
• Did most planes by the end of the war have some type of radar?
• Finally, how important were they in directing fighters to enemy planes? Was it mainly ground radar, scouting and communication, or the airborne radar that identified targets?