I don't know much about this religion so just wondering about it.

[deleted]

And did he replace them with Persian, Indian, etc, soldiers?

In most of the paintings and photos I have seen, WW1 battlefields were dark, muddy wastelands with sparse and destroyed trees, while most of the WW2 pics are not like this with their trees and environment being mostly intact. Why was the first world war more destructive to their surroundings?

Why during the First Crusade there were no kings marching to the Levant? What motivated kings to go the the Levant during successive crusades? What did Urban think when he only saw dukes and counts going to Jerusalem? Do you think that the reasons successive crusades were unsuccessful was because kings started to join?

Classical Greek armies were mostly seasonal militias. Did they transition to professional forces with the League of Corinth or did they remain militias?

If they remained militias, did they want to return home yearly from the Persian campaign for the harvest?

I've been interested in the literature that suggests PTSD is more of a physical affliction vs. emotional, due in part mostly to blast exposure. So that left me wondering if there are records that indicate similar rates of PTSD (i realize this is only one of the names given to the syndrome) before the technological advances of the World Wars.

I read somewhere in the grand, often-depressingly-inaccurate wilderness of Wikipedia that many British individuals in particular attempted to downplay the Soviet invasion of Poland as being morally just.

I do know, however, that eastern Poland was largely inhabited by Belarusians and Ukrainians who probably would have felt more at home within the Soviet government, and that the invasion may have been somewhat of a liberation for these groups.

So - were British citizens just trying to protect relations with the Soviet Union - a major trading partner which was important to fuel the war with Germany - or was it a logical viewpoint?

How often were kings or officials poisoned in the medieval era? Were there master schemes and plots that were going on in the court of rulers like medieval inspired shows want you to believe? If there were could you provide some examples of court conspiracies. Also side question was there also as much betrayal in the middle ages like in shows such as GoT?

That there title is a bit of a mouthful, but i couldn't find a way to fully ask the question in all its nuances in the title alone. Recently there was a very interesting discussion about the nature of race in ancient societies. But the information there really only raised more questions than it answered. I know that the nation and race as a social construct was created rather recently, but whenever i hear that i wonder about how the ancients may have classified "other peoples."

Let's say i'm a a black African slave in the holy land when the first crusade comes around. i'm a part of a household that a french noble takes/steals/however you want to phrase it. I was a Muslim but convert to Christianity and learn french. The noble frees me but i still serve him and i come with him to France, let's say somewhere near nice a few years later. He's a nice guy so he gives me land a few years later where i can settle down with a socially appropriate wife.

When my neighbors meet me, do they see a Frenchman? Do they see an African? does it matter more that i used to be Muslim or that i am black? Will my children be considered as french as their playmates? Will the fact that i am Christian be more important than the color of my skin? What if i never truly learn french and mostly communicate through grunts or pointing? What if i relapse into Islam in my old age?

I know this is an insanely specific example but whenever i hear that race is a modern construct i think of someone like this. Someone must have lived a life similar to this or faced the same questions. I have a hard time believing that medieval peasants would see a black man and just see another Frenchman with a bit of tan but not a member of another "race." wouldn't they think: "I mean yeah, after all he's been through he's as french as me(whatever that meant or didn't mean at the time) , but clearly we are different."

You have not tasted servitude. There is no land beyond us and even the sea is no safe refuge when we are threatened by the Roman fleet....We are the last people on earth, and the last to be free: our very remoteness in a land known only to rumour has protected us up till this day. Today the furthest bounds of Britain lie open—and everything unknown is given an inflated worth. But now there is no people beyond us, nothing but tides and rocks and, more deadly than these, the Romans. It is no use trying to escape their arrogance by submission or good behaviour. They have pillaged the world: when the land has nothing left for men who ravage everything, they scour the sea. If an enemy is rich, they are greedy, if he is poor, they crave glory. Neither East nor West can sate their appetite. They are the only people on earth to covet wealth and poverty with equal craving. They plunder, they butcher, they ravish, and call it by the lying name of 'empire'. They make a desolation and call it 'peace'

I've seen other translations that phrase it a bit differently but this the quickest I could find via Google

What was religion's impact on East Germany and what was the relationship between the church (ie. Lutheran/Catholic) and the government?

Did Adolf Hitler have repressive views against people from countries like Czechoslovakia, Poland, etc.? How exactly did he feel about that Slavic people?