I stumbled upon an old reddit comment which claimed this. It was heavily downvoted. But some cursory googling tells me this might be true, but that source was behind paywall

IF true, how and when the change happened?

I was wondering if anyone could shed light on how mental illness was treated over the course of the Ottoman Empire. Were there asylums like we think of with late Victorian era Europe/US, was it ascribed to Jinn like many scholars ascribed the Black Death in the 1400s? Really any information you could give would be great. Also I would love if you could list any source you have read or know of that I could delve into. I am not afraid of academic sources.

Thanks for your time.

I've heard it claimed that part of the reason that Christianity was appealing was that it improved the status of women. In pagan Rome women weren't allowed to own property, testify, etc., but in Christianity they were elevated to the same level as men. So did things for women actually improve after the empire adopted Christianity?

I have a family member who served on Pursuer D73 and it was only near the end of his life when he started telling us things about his time on that ship. I would like to know everything possible about it if anyone has any knowledge please. He mentioned about being torpedoed and ending up in the water in the Arctic Circle- you only had 5 minutes tops to get out of the water before you died. He did the Atlantic convoys and apparently the Murmansk convoys too where there were hailstones the size of a man's fist. He mentioned going to Africa and Norway. I know now that Pursuer was instrumental in firing upon the Tirpitz.

TL;DR: I'd like to know anything about HMS Pursuer D73. Thank you!

I'm deciphering some of his letters and Tedder seems to sign himself off as "Tirpitz". I can't find any reference to him having done this anywhere else, but these are private letters between himself and C.A.S. Portal. Does anyone happen to know please?

I am reading Philosophy in the Modern World by Anthony Kenny, and he writes on page 22: "For the rest of his life he lived in London, often in abject poverty, which caused three of his six children to die of starvation."

I would love to know more about Karl Marx's life in London during that period.

From my point of view, invading Belgium or not, Britain would still try to stop Germany. I mean,look at Japan

• In order to stop France's influence in Japan,a country that is near China,one of the biggest market at that time, which would seriously compete with the position of Britain in China (through Tokugawa Shogunate,who had pretty good relationship with French at the time) they sided with the anti-Shogunate

• In order to stop the rise of the Russian, they even allied with Japan and prevent France from entering the war. This, in my opinion, won half of the war for Japan. I think it's okay to say: without that alliance, Japan couldn't even rise to the position of great power. And after the WW1, US,seeing Japan - Britain alliance a threat to itself,asked Britain to cancel it. And they did it without hesitation,because of Soviet Union wasn't Russia

And also,after the Franco-Vietnamese alliance with Nguyen Anh in Vietnam, Britain even offered Vietnam a trade agreement,which I think was just the same thing they did with Japan

Back to the question. I think Belgium in Britain's eyes at that times was just a way to stop France or Germany became a superpower in central Europe,and that means, even if they didn't invade Belgium Britain would still tried to enter the war through someway (maybe with the alliance with France and Russia?)

Am I wrong?

From what I understand, Hitler built his own loyal army on the side and called it SS. Wasn't this a threat to the regular German army at the time?

And what were the soviet border troops like?

Are there any books that I could read on this?

Ninja edit: Side, not size

I've been reading about the history of modern policing and came across Peel's nine principles of policing.

I'm hoping you folks could give some background on Peel and his associates, the state of crime and policing in London before the principles (which I understand he may not have personally written), and what would have prompted Peel to do so. I'd be interested if other police forces were adopting similar measures elsewhere, or if it was really a new idea at the time as well, although that may be a bit out of scope.

I would also be curious to know what the effects of adopting the principles had on policing after they were introduced.

The book V. is largely set in the 1950s, but contains an extended segment depicting Imperial German atrocities in Southwest Africa.

Because Pynchon is known for his surrealism and satire, I'm unsure to what degree this depiction is accurate. The long African chapter serves a purpose that is more narrative than journalistic, and some episodes seem to be exaggerated. At the same time, the German genocide against Southwest African people is very poorly known. Pynchon's books are all rich with politics commentary, and it is very possible that he intended to bring light to German atrocities in his novel.

Chapter 9 of V. includes the following. Which elements are historically attested?

*80% of Herero individuals (65,000 people) would be slaughtered between 1904 and 1907 *Nearly all Southwest African women and girls were raped before their slaughter *Women's corpses would often be raped, sometimes by multiple soldiers in quick succession *Surviving women were kept as livestock in a pen, to be raped by passing platoons of soldiers *Officers were allowed exclusive long-term access to individual women *Due to high mortality rates among native men, pubescent boys were the most valuable sexual partners

Is this an accurate portrait of Imperial German behavior toward indigenous Africans, or did genocidal policy "just" involve killing?