Was the travel slow-going enough that they had time to adjust to higher elevations? If not, how did they deal with it?

Hello, I and half German and half Turkish, a lot of people consider Turks Europeans, but I'm not here to debate that right now, my question is why is only Istanbul considered in Europe when half of Anatolia is in the water and surrounded by countries like Ukraine Greece and Cyprus which are all European?

Hello, (soon to be) fellow historians.

My Undergrad thesis is due to be presented in a year's time, and I'm doing my best to get ahead of the game. I love Mongolian history, so the natural order of things would be to write my thesis on the Mongols. However, I'm running into a couple major problems.

• Primary resources
• Contributing something new to the field

These two issues heavily overlap. I am struggling to find primary sources, and the few I've found overlap so secondary sources all cover similar topics. The goal is to offer something new to the field, and I fear I may fail to do so.

When it comes to the Mongols, almost all documents focus on the 13th and 14th centuries, so that is where I will keep my scope.

In terms of Primary sources, I have:

• The Secret History of the Mongols
• The Story of the Mongols whom we call the Tartars

...and that's it. I've scoured JSTOR to no avail, and I haven't worked with any other databases before.

My secondary sources consist of:

• Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World, by Jack Weatherford
• Genghis Khan's Greatest General: Subotai the Valiant, by Richard Gabriel
• The Mongol Art of War, by Timothy May
• Great Captains Unveiled, by B.H. Liddell Hart

I have checked their sources for ideas, but they were little help. Liddell Hart doesn't have any cited sources(!) This is where things get complicated. I have little ideas on what I want to write the thesis on because I want to ensure I can produce an adequate amount of primary sources before I begin reading.

Being that the Mongols weren't keen on writing things down, I figure my sources will come from China, Russia, Kwharezmia, Hungary, etc. However, I'm unaware of any writers I can turn to for documents on the Mongols.

In terms of a topic, I would prefer to write about Subutai, as he is almost entirely unknown. He was responsible for most of the conquering that made the Mongol Empire as large as it was, yet no one knows his name. However, picking a topic is skipping ahead if I don't have documents to read from.

tl;dr

Are there any contemporary documents covering the Mongols or Subutai during their westward expansion? Any places I should check to glean sources from? China, Khwaremia, Russia, Hungary?

Am I missing any obvious books or sources? Any military historians here who have indirectly studied the Mongols and have something to share?

Could the lack of sources be a point of study in itself? Were the Mongols suppressing historical writings?

I'm not asking you to do my research for me, just looking to spur some discussion and hopefully get pointed in the right direction.

Thanks!

I got a helmet recently, and it's the same as any M1 except it has a shiny silver coloring. I was told it's a marine helmet. Does anyone here know anything about it?

What I know of the photo is that it is taken in a mostly bombed out city. It was taken from a rooftop and the focus of the picture is a Soviet soldier holding out a large Soviet flag as a symbol of victory. I have seen various versions of the photo ranging from black and white to full color, but the one I saw most commonly had only the Soviet flag colorized. I know a small piece of trivia about the photo as well; the soldier holding the flag is wearing two wristwatches and that portion was often doctored out so as to not show the looting and pillaging that followed the battle.

As you may know, most Central Banks in the world are not owned by the state/government. Rather they are privately owned by bank cartels. Or independent, or whatever euphemism they use to mask the true state of the Central Bank.

A Central Bank which is owned by the state is called a nationalized bank. For example, in post colonial era, in the midst of the 20th century, many of the new born nations who gained independence would nationalize their Central Bank from their previous colonial rulers ownership.

The bank is then owned by the state and answers to the constitution or government body. While an INDEPENDENT or privately owned bank would answer to their rightfully private owners. Which most likely are a chain of, in turn also, privately owned corporations in the form of banks as well.

My question is, how did those banks gain ownership of a Central Bank? According what law was it possible to acquire possession of a Central Bank? What and how was the mechanism? Which set of law was used? Whom did they pay the tag price to?

Napoleon was known for his long marches, often moving 50km in a day to outflank an enemy. That's a blistering pace even by modern standards, so I'm curious what the consequences would have been for the inevitable soldier falling out on the march? Especially in enemy territory?

From what I understand, Franco made it one of his cornerstone policies to aggressively implement Catholicism in Spain, at the expense of other faiths it secularism. However, he was also a dictator who killed and oppressed people, something which I think you'd have a hard time finding support for in the modern Vatican.

So these things considered, how did the Vatican view Franco and his actions? Did they denounce him on the basis of human rights abuses? Or did they overlook this because he was promoting Catholicism?

How was Greek political philosophy adapting to the decline of the city-state and the rise of the empire as the dominant form of government?

Hi! When i was in gradeschool in norway we was read a historical fiction of a battle in lofoten. This must have been in the late 19th century and concerned a battle during the industrialisation of fishing. The traditional fisher came in conflict with the steam fishing boats. I wonder if someone can give a more nuanced view and some book recomensations.

Also I apparently had a relative that was present in the conflict on the traditional fishermen's side.

Furthermore I'd be interested in differences between the punishment in the Wehrmacht and SS, how rank might have changed the punishment and whether refusing to participate in a mass execution or refusing to serve in a death camp would have similar results. What were the chances of someone being transferred to another role if he requested it?

As "unified China" I mean lands where most people live, so Tibet, Gobi desert, Manchuria and Taiwan can be excluded.

Correct me if I am wrong, but "Alemania" seems to refer to the Alemanni, who were one of the many german tribes. In German, the country is called "Deutscheland" (Land of the german people I guess?) and in english its called Germany (Again, land of the germans). So why do the spanish call it "Land of the Alemanni"? (specially when the word "Germania" which would be more accurate, already exists in the spanish language). Is there a historical reason for this? Am I making a wrong asumption?

Thanks!

It got me thinking today because a friend of mine much better with her hair short and another friend of mine looks much better with long hair yet both their families don't approve of their hairstyles.

So, I got to thinking that like all other cultural norms, it has roots from a distant time.

My first guess was that in Ancient Rome, with the Mediterranean weather being so hot, soldiers were forced to shave their heads, and this influenced other cultures, but I think it can't be that simple.

Then I thought it may be due to biological differences, with male and female hair being different.

Or, is it something else entirely that I have not thought of?

What impression did European explorers, diplomatic envoys, merchants etc. leave in the Orient. Is there any info about what they thought of western mannerisms, technology, language or their physical appearance?

Note: I'm interested in first contact, not literally the first time, but certainly the first few years.

I'm very curious, where are new amendments to the original Constitution added? Are they kept separate, are they kept together? Do we unseal the original Constitution and add to it?

From my understanding, the Romans conquered modern-day England and Wales, which was inhabited by Celts at the time. I am aware that there was some cultural and linguistic merging between Latin and the Brittonic tongues of the British Iron Age, leaving many Romance influences on the native languages of Britain before the Anglo-Saxons migrated onto the island and bringing Old English. So my question is, do we have any evidence of Latin influences on Brittonic tongues having worked their way into Old English, before the Normans invaded in 1066 and bringing their version of Old French?