it's a idea that the jew killed jesus is something that often comes up when justify antisemittisme. who old is this notion and who did it start?

The UK is our closest ally but many Americans have Irish ancestry, how did most Americans and the American government view The Troubles?

Did he look so far down on them that he thought they deserve it?
Or did he not use it?
Edit: grammar

Like suppose you live in Hastings in 994. I would have thought you could get free salt forever just boiling sea water?

[deleted]

The use of the eye would appear to predate Islam (thinking of Eye of Horus), is it even older than the Egyptians? And how did it survive the rise of Islam? Were there any competing symbols too?

Norse Sól and Anglo-Saxon Sunna are female and their moon is male just like Lithuanian myth says the sun is the mother, the moon the father and the sun goddess is called Saulė.

But other Indo-European religions have male solar deities like greek Helios, Roman Apollo or Hindu Surya.

When did this divergence occur and was it the result of influences from other kinds of religions?

Any good books on Sweden's involvement in the wars, militarily, diplomatically, its interests, etc.

So i need to write 46900 in roman numerals. Which one would be correct? I'm writing with my phone now so Capitols are meant to be numerals with line above them. Small letters mean just normal ones. XLVIcm or XLVmcm ?

Even if those both mean the same number, is there any formal differences?

Thanks already!

• R

I read that the Romans utilized 'Auxiliary Troops' who were not actually Romans but rather seen as cannon fodder; how did other armies go about it?

EDIT: ^ Disregard everything I wrote up there about Auxiliaries, it's incorrect, thanks for the reply /u/Iguana_on_a_stick

I was doing a "Wiki walk" and I came across Bernard Montgomery's page and I found it strange that he didn't have a "Sir" next to his name. Why didn't the most famous British general of World War II ever get knighted? It seems like people get knighted for less significant things in my opinion. Thanks for any answers to a random little thought. :)

My Gx3 Grandfather, John Hopkins of Portsmouth New Hampshire came to the ranching area of Rancho San Jose(near current day Pomona/Ontario) around the time of the goldrush. My Gx2 grandfather, George Hopkins was born in Rancho San Jose in April 1853 (his mother was a Mexican woman of very poor means--Maria Martinez). What baffles me is that while the population in San Francisco was exploding and there were 100s of thousands of 49ers in the hills, bay and Delta, the south was only populated by Mexican settlers from the Spanish colonial era and what remained of the native population. From what I've read the LA census was something like 2k people almost entirely Mexicans. Why the hell would this ancestor (or anyone really) have chosen to go to SoCal vs NoCal during this time? Cattle? Gold? Military? Trade? Adventure?

I'm especially interested in any primary source material that I could use in researching the context and possibly my family members that may give a clue. The 1852 census doesn't help in my case. I'm in the Bay Area and have looked at some stuff in the Bancroft Holdings at Berkeley as well as some of the digitized stuff online at various libraries.

This conversation like many others with my roomates started very drunkenly in a bar so please excuse misspellings and/or repetiveness in this question

I argued that the Arab recurve bow while more difficult and time consuming to make is substantially more powerful (especially when it comes to the distance that one can shoot) than the english longbow.

Could I please get get some evidence either proves or disproves my theory that the Arab recurve bow is more potent... thank you very much

Before I get berated for saying Arab instead of a specific country/region I honestly don't know if there was any difference between the effectiveness of different bows so for bonus Internet points could anybody tell me if there was? Thanks again

I'm at least passingly familiar with the 20th-century reforms (the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, plus the reduction in the number of hereditary peers during the Blair government) that reduced the power of the Lords during that period. But clearly by 1911 the Commons was already the "main" house, in that for example there was no question whether a Liberal could be Prime Minister when the Conservatives controlled the other house.

So when did the change happen? Is there a specific vote or issue that can be pointed to as the first time that the two houses disagreed and the Commons prevailed? Were there politicians (on either side) particularly associated with that transfer of power?

Did no one in the world notice a Hydrogen bomb going off at Eniwetok in the Marshall Islands? No one at all? How does something like that go unnoticed and why was there a delay in telling the public "Hey we made this thing that blows shit up a while back, forgot to mention."

I'm just a little confused on the entire matter. Mostly the delay.

Most societies throughout history, including most European societies, are ruled by men. Why is this? My uninformed idea is that if men are on average stronger, then they would have had an upper hand going all the way back to when our society was little more than a troupe of monkeys, just like how gorillas are ruled by males. Did this simply continue while we became smarter just due to the momentum and the relative ease of maintaining the status quo? That there is an unbroken line of patriarchy from the time before we were actually human? I know there are many examples of female rulers in Europe, and other societies that are actual matriarchies, but I'm wondering about the broader trends that gave rise to the lopsided number of patriarchal societies.

[deleted]

As right-wing dictatorships go, are those which are fascist actually any different from those not associated with that term? How does a fascist state differ from your standard aristocratic or bourgeois autocracy?

What was the Roman equivalent to midnight kebab, or any other greasy late night munchie? It's a part of Roman dining culture that I really don't know anything about.

I've heard this many times before, sometimes with legitimate sounding evidence to back it up. That we wanted a way to enter the war with public opinion on our side. I know the topic is listed as a fringe conspiracy but are there any documents or statements that back up the idea of foreknowledge of the event to allow the attack to occur?

Supposedly so they wouldn't keep returning to 'take revenge'?

If not, why not?

I'm open to hearing political science conjecture, because this might turn into speculation if there's limited evidence.

Maybe the mods aren't though. :S

Did they actually form shield walls? Did they actually open them up, let the enemy stream in, then turn around when the enemy was surrounded? Did they actually list up archers behind the shield wall so they could shoot over it?