From my point of view, being exposed to western media, it certainly seems that way. I apologize if this perception is wrong and welcome corrections.

But given that there is indeed a trajectory in history toward this religious intolerance, I'd like to know what were the historical factors involved.

I've always assumed humans have worn their hair in dreadlocks since the Neolithic Age. I don't have a strong background in cultural histories. Is there a distinct history behind the hairstyle?

In particular, did Napoleon and/or the French government really think they could invade Egypt without expressly antagonizing the Ottomans? In my glancing study of the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, I have often come across the notion that the invasion of Egypt was justified as aiming to overthrow the Mamluk administration rather than the Ottomans, but I'm unclear as to whether the French truly thought that the province was so autonomous as to be de facto independent and thus that the invasion wouldn't cause war with the Ottomans, or if they simply thought that the strategic advantage of controlling Egypt and possibly disrupting British trade and control in India was worth fighting the Ottomans and alienating a possible ally against Russia?

Did their hire guards? What was stopping the guards from taking it and skipping town? There was no way to track it, right?

I'm doing some light reading on the history of the mystery novel/detective novel, and because most of what I've been touching refers to Sherlock Holmes as a base, I now am really curious to know if there's any classical equivalent to a modern mystery novel. Or, if that's not specific enough, a detective novel. Maybe the answer's obvious and I'm just not thinking properly, but I really want to know if anything like Sherlock Holmes or the Maltese Falcon existed prior to the Renaissance.

Reading the Sharpes series specifically his time in India it makes reference to Jettis as a religious order of body builders. Was this a real order and does it still exist today?

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

I read that in Normandy in 1944, the US Army 90th division lost an average of 48% of its lieutenants every week, and that the infantry alone required 36,000 officer replacements every month in the ETO. Just why is it these losses were so disproportionately high compared to enlisted personnel?

By definition, I believe it to be true. However, I would like clarification and some back story of what the exact definition is.

One wouldn't excavate Queen Victoria for religious, cultural, and temporal reasons. Taking into account the fact that those buried in the pyramids (for example) certainly didn't want their bodies disturbed, at what point, as historians, do we have the 'right' to study people's bodies? I can't work out (as an atheist) at what point- if any- I'd feel comfortable a) disturbing somebody's grave, and b) putting their remains on display, if it seemed obvious that this went against their wishes.

Apparently, Carthage used primarily mercenary armies. How were these armies paid? Was the payment solely to support them with food and lodging, or was there another kind of payment that went to them, their home cities or tribes, or their families?

Introduction:

Iraq and Syria are loaded with tells. The definition of a ''tell'' according to wikipedia:

"A tell, or tel, is a type of archaeological mound created by human occupation and abandonment of a geographical site over many centuries. A classic tell looks like a low, truncated cone with a flat top and sloping sides. The term is mainly used of sites in the Middle East, where it often forms part of the local place name."

There are hundreds of these tells in Syria and Iraq, especially in the northern regions of these countries. Many towns and villages have ''tell'' as a prefix, which usually indicates that the settlement was built on or near a tell.

However, when looking at photos of these tells, it looks like the vast majority of these tells are untouched (no excavations have taken place, or very little).

Main question:

Other than the instability of these countries, what other reasons are there for not excavating these tells? Are these tells not considered to be significant enough to invest the time and resources required to properly excavate them? (There are hundreds of these sites, so it would, obviously, be an extremely expensive and time consuming undertaking).

Follow-up question:

What are some good examples of excavated tells that revealed major historical monuments (such as uncovered lost cities/towns, castles, major artefacts, etc.)? And can we expect the same or similar results if the untouched tells were to be excavated?

Final word:

The majority of settlements near these tells consist of small, poor, and boring villages. Ancient history is buried beneath them, but most people are not even aware of it, or simply don't care. It would also be a major boost to the economy of these poor regions if the sites were excavated; new museums and historical sites to attract tourists.

Watching Band of Brothers, Saving Private Ryan, The Pacific, etc., I've always been curious as to what sorted certain soldiers to be riflemen, sub-machine-gunners, snipers, mortar-men, and such. Did a soldier place a preference? Was there a test given out to see how each person fared with each kind of weapon?

This is a question that came to me while reading the big discussion on Hitler and the Great Men theory.

I'm no historian, but I've always been fascinated by Genghis Khan. While his personal rise to power from being an outcast is probably unique, was his role as a unifier of the Mongolian tribes and conqueror of the Jin dynasty one that was largely facilitated by the political situation then? Were the times in China during that time ripe for a third party to eventually conquer both the Jin and Song dynasty? After all, while the two dynasties had been weakened by war with each other, they still possessed resources far outstripping what other players in the region had available.

I'm interested in the conflict between Israel and its neighboring states particularly with the six days war... additionally, anybody have any good documentaries you recommend watching?

The most significant ones I've come across are "filet". Americans say "fill-aye", Brits say "fill-et". Apparently the origin is Middle English and Old French. Why do Americans pronounce and spell it in the French way?

Same thing with dropping the "h" at the front of "herb." Americans do this; Brits don't; word comes from Middle English via Middle French (herba or herbe).

And yet I've been told that British people began to adopt spellings with the letter u and doubling up on the letter l in order to seem more French.

Why do Americans pronounce words in the French way? Is this because some parts of the US were French territories? Have those pronunciations and spellings always been present, or were they adopted late in the day to make things seem more French (as in England)?