I'll admit I don't know much about the region in that time. However, it's my understanding that it was "pagan" whereas Islam, the religion that Muhammad founded, is one of the Abrahamic religions. If Muhammad wasn't a follower of an Abrahamic religion how did he know enough of it to found one?

Another question: One of the conditions for the Sherpas to assist John Hunt's team was that the Sherpa would be part of the first assault team to reach the summit. Why is it that Tenzing and Edmund were chosen to go second? This seems to me that the agreement was dishonoured.

For example, someone takes a close look at a specific battle, explains the short history of the combatants, the equipment used, the terrain and other details.

Also, explanations from the commanders' POV, what they did and why.

I know information like this can be found on wikipedia, I want more in-depth stuff where I can understand easier what the people where thinking at the time. Would be nice to see more battles, where I can see how tactics evolved over time

Any tips?

In the post-dreadnought period, all-forward guns (e.g. Nelson class) seems to be pretty rare. It seems like this design would generally be an improvement over the standard battleship design, which placed one if not two main turrets in the stern.

The main advantages seem to be

• Allows ship to drive forward towards the enemy with all guns available to fire (as long as all turrets are superfiring relative to the ones in front)

• Still allows broadsides

The main disadvantages

• Can not fire at a pursuing enemy if trying to flee

Even if they were being coerced into fighting for him, why were they always so clever and competent about it?

I'm not sure if this is completely appropriate to ask but I didn't see anything in the FAQ one way or the other. Please delete if this is a violation of the rules.

In the past I've read quite a bit of naval history, especially material that relates to the Royal Canadian Navy and especially the Royal Navy. But over the past 15 years I've spent more time reading for work than for pleasure! I've just finished reading The Loss of the Bismarck by Graham Rhys-Jones and it was a reminder of how much I enjoy reading historical research and analsys related to naval actions and campaigns.

I'm curious if anybody could recommend books or papers that you think are especially worth reading about the Royal Navy (or the Royal Canadian Navy) from around the time of Jackie Fisher's first stint as First Sea Lord, until say decolonization under Harold MacMillian's first government. Basically overalp between the two wars and the policies that came just before and after. Other writing related other naval powers might also be of interest. My favourite book on the topic is probably Kaigun by Evans and Peattie.

I've studied history at an undergraduate level (history minor as part of a BA), I only mention this because I'd be very interested in primary sources that are publically available and/or good papers and academic material, not just popular history if you know of things worth reading.

so recently king tut's dagger was found to be made of a meteorite and the Egyptian people called it "iron from the sky."

how did they know what iron was if they lived in the bronze age?

did they know of iron but just didnt know how to use it?

Germany lost a good deal of its Eastern landmass as a result of losing WWII; has Germany ever tried to restore those claims?

Generally referenced, but usually not specifically.

Did Bismarck consider that Austria might become dominant over Prussia in the union? Did he consider it, but decide that it wasn't worth the risk?

The hunnic language is something that's always fascinated me but looking it up online I haven't really been able to find much on it. It's really peaked my curiosity especially when it comes to the background of the Huns and their descendants now including the language they spoke. I'm interested to know whether or not their language was Turkic, Mongolic or even Indo-European in nature.

I am currently researching the effect artillery had on the tactics of World War 1. I have looked at many sources and so far have only found information on how the heavy artillery of the Germans absolutely decimated French and British troops because of their outdated tactics. What I need to know is how the tactics and defenses changed so the Allied forces could survive such attacks, like during the Battle of Verdun, where German forces met heavy resistance, even after they bombarded that area they were to advance into. Any additional sources, of texts for me to use would be great, because everything I write obviously needs to be cited.

EDIT: typo in the title. "How did military tactics change in response to the use of heavy artillery during World War 1"

First of all, i love this subreddit. I am currently seeking answers here to questions i had since a long time but never got an answer to from my history teacher.

So, my last 2 recent threads about Germany and WW1 sparked another question from me about Imperial Germany.

How good or bad was the German Empire for the people living in it? It did many bad things like killing the Hereros, contributing much to the outbreak of The Great War, mass rape in Belgium, inventing of gas weapons, very agressive diplomacy and so on. So it was certainly a bad country for the rest of the world.

But how good or bad was it for the people living in Germany? How was the quality of life, the freedom of speech, how happy were the people with their absolute monarchy and so on. I am german myself, but we only covered the German Empire very short in history class and it was mostly about Bismarck, the scramble of africa and how WW1 started.

Sorry if I come off as a blithering idiot. Was the Shah(s) in Iran put in there by the British empire for their special interests (what were they?) until he was taken down and replaced by Islamic Rule in the late 70s/early 80s? Does anyone have any good books on this subject? Or even on the British Empires involvement in Iran and other parts of the Middle East?

Were any violent passages in the Bible removed? I heard about this somewhere but would like someone to explain it for me if it is indeed true.

The situation I'm imagining is that a state passes a law banning slavery and the slaveholder just ignores it for a while until the answer to this question happens.

Ken Burn's documentary says they surrendered after 34 hours of bombardment, with the only fatality being a Confederate mule.

I know European monarchs have them but did African/Aztec/Asian/Incan rulers wear them? If not what symbols of power did they have to convey their status elsewhere?

I hope this isn't a repost