Obviously, even pre-Christian Nordic religion isn't particularly well known, but we seem to have a good idea of who the important gods where and what religious practices where. Whereas with other pre-Christian European religions, whether they were generally converted earlier (Ireland) or later (Lithuania), we know much less.

I have seen some indications that he was an advocate of the movement, but nothing I can point to as a smoking gun. Any suggestions? Perhaps those indications are in error? I would be interested to know either way.

I am asking this question because, in my limited experience with so-called "academic" history, the United States transforms into a world power fairly quickly. Initially, I thought it happened solely because of WWI and its aftermath. However, some reading about Theodore Roosevelt's actions preceding WWI (stoking the Spanish-American War, the show of naval power) has changed my mind. The United States seems to have become a "world power" during the 19th century at some point.

I am not sure how the Civil War fits into the conversation. I know that it does, but most of my knowledge regarding the Civil War has come from rather sterilized sources (I was obsessed with Abraham Lincoln as a kid and know the little kid version of that time period). Thus, I submit this question.

SO I have been in a debate with a few friends at university over this topic. Traditionally it is said Native peoples are called Indian because Columbus thought he landed in India. However, I have been told by multiple professors at my university that the real reason was due to Columbus reffering to the population as "In Dios" meaning people of god, due to how he felt they were very close with God. This is further supported with the fact that India is refereed to as Hindustan on his maps.

Which is correct?

When I think about all the innovations that came out of the industrial era, such as improved fabrics, modern central heating, even shoes differentiated for left and right feet, it seems that we must be a lot more physically comfortable now than we were before 1900. Is this really the case?

Edit: In relation to North America and Western Europe.

More specifically politically. Did rivers have any impact politically on places like Mesopotamia or Egpyt? I am trying to think of ways but am hitting a brick wall, I even have my book with me and am trying to find some information but can't. Any way one of you can help?

Like the title said this may be the wrong subreddit, but I am looking into what types of clothes were worn during the Medieval and Middle Ages and was wondering if there are any great sources people know about.

I am curious as to what some of the local history may be in the vicinity of Black Mountain in the Mojave Desert of Southern California. I recently had the opportunity to meet with the forman of the Black Mountain Complex at Inscription Canyon and he shared some insight into the areas ancient history. Allegedly, between 8,000 and 5,000 years ago the area was inhabited by four different tribes collectively referred to as "Udo-Aztecans." Inscription Canyon and the petroglyphs within supposedly outline the history of thes people.
Inscription Canyon itself was not a place where people lived but rather, a "military stronghold." The area is surrounded by hills, cliffs and many winding trails. The petroglyphs allege that once, six-thousand people lived here. The climate grew warm and dry, the lakes dried up and the animals migrated North. With no choice but to follow, these "Udo-Aztecans" uprooted and began to migrate North. Somewhere along the way they encountered the Hohokan, an advanced, warrior tribe migrating south. Conflict ensued. The "Udo-Aztecans were many but the Hohokan possesed the atalattle, a spear launched from a pivot, thus possessing standoff capability.
Slowly the Hohokan pushed the "Udo-Aztecan" tribes all the way back down into the very lands they came from. It was here, in the vicinity of Black Mountain where they made their last stand. The glyphs tell of "The Battle of Bear Paw" which lasted four days and moved from what is now Harper Dry Lake, through the hills and back to Inscription Canyon. The glyphs depict the Udo-Aztecan tribes leaving a trail of dead and then it was over. Atop one of the surrounding hills is a massive stone spur which juts over the edge of a cliff. The Hohokan reportedly "disposed of" many of the natives here. Few managed to escape save for women, children and soe elderly maybe.
The remnants of the Udo-Aztecan collective went into hiding for an alleged two-thousand years, fleeing far south into the San Bernardino Mountains.. Through oral tradition and time the now female led collective had grown back to its former glory and sought to reclaim their homeland. Eventually, they did and the area we now know as Inscription Canyon was created to remind the natives of their own history, and is considered a sacred place. Glyphs, landmarks and even a giant ram's head of stone imbedded in the face of a mountain all tell the tale. And supposedly, even to this day, Native American fathers bring their sons here to teach them their ancient history, their roots.
My concerns are; why is there no information available on this subject, and is this interpretation correct?

[deleted]

During desegregation, many whites claimed that their rights were being infringed upon by forcing them to interact/do business with blacks. How did the government get past this argument?

I think the question is pretty self explanatory. How much in the way of war-making capacity did Iraq lose after the First Gulf War? Wikipedia lists the number of losses by both sides, but i'm interested in the bigger picture. And how long was Iraq's military hurt after the Gulf War?

The film Lincoln (which I assume is true to life, at least in broad strokes) clearly shows the Republicans as the progressive party (albeit divided) and the Democrats as reactionary (pro-slavery, pro-South). But now - or in 1996 - we understand the Democrats (albeit divided) as progressive and the Republicans as conservative (reactionary).

It's as if there was a complete swap at some point. I don't know enough US history to dig through this, in short: when? And I appreciate there's likely to be a lot of sub-stories to this, like the Southern Democrats, so the more detail the better!

Specifically in the news how where the facts of the war, the scale, individual battles covered? Would, for example, The Economist, report on the Battle of Antietam? Would it be compared to European warfare? Was the significance of battles and campaigns understood?

I know that the two Roosevelts and Reagan really shook things up, but were they seen as extreme in their own time period like Cruz and Sanders are today? Is there another president that as far out there that I don't know about?

What I mean by drafted is: someone who had not announced their candidacy or campaigned in the primaries, but who, after no first ballot winner at their party's national convention, was picked to be the nominee.

Was it ever given an official designation or was it simply referred to as the English Navy? How was it referred to in other European countries? (e.g During the First Anglo-Dutch War).

It seems like sailors are always depicted as mopping. The obvious term, 'swab the poop deck comes to mind', and I can think of numerous world war sailors in dancing, mopping routines.

I've had a boat, albeit small at 24ft, and everything was always wet. I didn't bother mopping. I would just hang a towel and dry my feet when I needed. Why did sailors always have to mop or where did this legend originate? Surely they weren't using fresh water, were they?

If I had to speculate, I'd say it was busy work. The more I think about it, I guess it could be boat maintenance or slip prevention. Thanks!

Edit: auto correct in the title, it should say 'always'

Personally the phrase "Committee of Public Safety" is linked to the Reign of Terror so it shocked me to read that the generals would use that name as part of their efforts to bring de Gaulle back to power.

Was the name intended just to reference the French Revolution while ignoring the Reign of Terror? Was it a threat to start a new Reign of Terror? Was it just a bureaucratic choice with no special meaning behind it?

How did different people in the Muslim world perceive the gradual European domination of their lands?

What did separate North African and Middle Eastern polities think as they gradually fell to British, French, Italian, and Spanish rule? What about the steady Russian conquest of Central Asia and the Caucasus? Did the Ottomans decry every one of these incidents? Did they ever publicly acknowledge that they (along with the Persians) were the last "independent" Muslim states heading into the 20th century?

As far as "reactions" are concerned, I'm interested in any account from any element of Muslim society (formal state declarations, discussion from intellectuals, opinions of the masses, etc.). Was a common narrative formed that recognized a global European ascent?