I'm not talking about subtle, tounge-in-cheek racism; or All in the Family, satire racism. I'm talking about blatant, deliberate racism in TV shows.

With the Muslim conquests beginning in the seventh century and carrying well into the high middle ages, where they forcibly converted or killed any non Muslims, eradicated several religions or religious sects. I'm surprised the period and happenings of these events is considerably lesser known than something like the Crusades, a smaller scale of holy wars where Christians did the same things Muslims did.

Is there any reason or reasons that this might be? (I'm from and educated in the West, so that may be a factor as well)

I've been wondering about this for some time. Did the Communist party promote the color red as a "lucky color" to legitimize themselves in some way?

In Colin Woodard's American Nations he makes two fairly bold claims. First he claims that at the very beginning of the American Civil War only the New England states were willing to use force to keep the USA together, the other eventual Union states lying between the Confederacy and New England had no desire for war and would have remained neutral making a war impossible and succession feasible. He then argues that the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter whipped these central states into patriotism and bellicosity, they rallied round the flag and the war was able to occur.

His second claim is even bolder; that the Confederate succession would have possibly led to two further successions. Firstly New York City as a sort of independent city state and secondly a Central Confederacy consisting of non-slave/non-New England states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, etc.

It's really hard to find objective information on the American Civil War's start with so much ideology surrounding the event. Is Woodard's argument reasonable? Would Allowing Fort Sumter to stand and the Confederacy taking no aggressive actions have made war impossible and Southern succession feasible? Could it actually have ended in the break of the USA into four separate states?

Another related question; how exactly were armoured trains used in combat? Was their role similar to the tanks that came later on (railway lines permitting), or were they used differently?

I ask specifically about armoured trains because I am not aware of any other armoured land vehicles prior to the introduction of tanks (EDIT: apart from armoured cars, but they don't fill the same role as tanks).

I am a undergraduate history major who is finishing my degree at this semester and I am on a quest. I really want to up my research game and dedicate at least an hour a day to begin research into my preferred area of specialisation. To begin I decided on evolution of military warfare, specifically ancient to medieval periods. Finally to my question, I would like some advice on where to start and who to read? As my time on this earth is finite I would like some recommendations from people who know, rather than rely on my intellect and the internet and waste countless hours in the process. Thank you for your time, I hope to answer any questions you may have in a prompt manner. Sincerely,

Skaldtobe.

The Japanese aren't aryan...

I mean as far as i read the conduct of war on the eastern front was merciless but they never delivered gas attacks, especially in cities like Leningrad, Stalingrad and so on. Why?

Why is it that when looking at the culture of Europe today, Romance language and culture has survived further inland in now Romania, but not in former Yugoslavia?

As far west as Iberia saw widespread Roman settlement, and Roman influence created a culture that lasts to this day, but just across the Adriatic from Italy they still speak South Slavic.

What about Roman Illyricum was different than that of Rome's western provinces so that Slavic, and Albanian culture survived there?

Did Sweden ever try to conquer St.Petersburg under its golden age? And if not, why?

There’s a famous scene in the movie The Egyptian where a frail doctor, holding a sword made of iron, tells a big Egyptian general to try and strike him down with his prize bronze sword. The general smugly tries to do so, but the doctor’s iron sword not only stops him, but shatters the bronze blade.

Now I’ve been reading up that bronze was just as tough a metal for combat. Was this scene just a falsehood used to explain why iron really replaced bronze as the preferred metal for weaponry?

Hello reddit, I have a few questions about The Entente cordiale. I am writing a coursework about the evolution of the Anglo-French relations from the medieval ages until present and I consider this to be the turning point where they stopped being rivals and became allies. These are the questions:

1. What exactly caused The Entente cordiale?
2. Did it impact only the culture of the two countries or did it have any sort of significant on their politics as well?
3. What was the main reason these two countries became allied in the WWI even after so many centuries of conflicts? I'm sure The Entente cordiale did help this but I doubt it was the only reason.

Also what was the state of the Austro Hungarian army like after the withdrawal of Russia? Was there even much of an army to speak of?

I'm specifically referencing the project taken by Nietzsche and then Foucault. They have a pretty negative view of traditional history and I'm wondering how historians responded to their work.

As a side note my teacher mentioned historians have massive problems with Foucault's history in the history of sexuality. Can anyone elaborate on what's wrong with the series historically?

I understand Homer may not have been a real individual in the same vein of Shakespeare; supposing he was is there any document or oft told story to back this up?

Hey /r/askhistorians! I'm doing an extension history course at my school and have to write an essay on a subject of my choosing. I've chosen the above question.

Unfortunately I can't find absolutely no sources. Any help would be GREATLY appreciated. Thanks!

My Linguistics professor said this in class during lecture. They asserted that the Phonecian alphabet is the ancestor to all modern alphabets and that the idea spread from there. Any alphabet in use today can be traced back in some from or another as a modification of the Phonecian alphabet. Is this true? If not, what alphabets aren't derived from the Phonecian alphabet?

I looked through the FAQ and didn't see the question.

Seems the United States (or the area that later became the US) was more of a hot spot for a larger range of people from different origins. And seems to have started that earlier than other regions of the Americas. True? If so, why?

Thank you and great subreddit.

It seems like there are some obvious factors in popular media that caused it to pick up steam in the '70s and '80s, but by the '00s the fear that devil worshipers are everywhere and responsible for everything seems to have abruptly disappeared, and I've never seen an explanation for why that was. What factors do modern historians think influenced the shift?

I remember reading or hearing (maybe Ken Burns) that before the civil war it would be more common to say "the United States are..." than "the United States is..." Is there any truth to this? And if so, was it common to have fervant state loyalty throughout the antebellum USA?