I'm learning for the first time about the Age of Enlightenment (from the Wikipedia page: The Enlightenment was marked by increasing empiricism, scientific rigor, and reductionism, along with increased questioning of religious orthodoxy.)

I am wondering if there are comparable movements in any other major religions, namely Islam or Judaism. If so, what are they called? When did they occur? How are their affects felt today?

For example, now we know that the Hittites referred to themselves as Nešili and so did their contemporaries. Then, why do we still use another name to refer to them? Is not this misleading? Another somewhat related question: do we know how Scythians or the Huns referred to themselves?

Ex: top side = one option, bottom side = another option. I'm wondering where that specific method, that seems universal, seems to come from.

I thought it would be interesting to read about the use of history in video games, and how games portray history vs. how it actually was. However, when I try to search for it, all I can find is the history of video games, not history in video games.

Can anyone point me in the right direction?

Hello, so I recently got into the Korean Three Kingdoms period and I’m so hooked on everything and I'm hoping to learn about anything and everything I can relating to this period. I have so many questions and sources I could find so far are either in Korean or yield very little significant information. I've already browsed google, wikipedia and some other readily available online sources but I think I need a lot more to help me along with my research. If you could give me names of books, blogs, journal articles, news articles, documentaries, youtube sources and anything else that can shed more light on this period for me it would be super swell. I understand that Goguyeo was the largest in size, but did it have the most people in it as well? Was it an ethnic and linguistic melting pot in Korea at the time? Bakjae appears to be the soft power center of Korea but a lot of what I read made them appear militarily inferior to both Silla and Goguyeo. What was Silla’s strong point that made them such a threat? Did the other 2 just ignore them for so long that they were allowed to grow too strong? How did Gaya fit into all this? How were they able to exist whilst so many other confederacies of the time were subjugated by the kingdoms?

SO MANY QUESTIONS.

My main goal is to find out about:

• The prominent settlements in the area • The population figures of the place • demographics (religion, ethnicity, culture and language groups) • military statistics (standing armies, levy capacities, battles) • prominent peoples (kings, lords, generals, admirals, diplomats)

All and all, I'm really only asking for resources that can give me a better understanding of the period.

Thankyou for reading and hope you can help.

I think it is crazy that some people preferred throwing axes to javelins. To my understanding, javelin is easier to make, easier to throw, flies further, and the javelin thrower has almost no chance to fail the throw the same way that an axe thrower can, as in hitting with the handle. Also, javelins pierce further, right? So it would also do more damage and were harder to remove.

As the title says, why did some people prefer to use a throwing axe?

I get that prisoners were forced to work hard in poor conditions. Germans could have as many people in there as they would like. So in order too gain the most, guards were forcing prisoners to hard work in poor conditions because even if someone would die due to those conditions (which took usually few months) they could replace this prisoner with a new worker. I get that.

But my tour guide said at first there weren't even much work to do, so guards forced prisoners to do meaningless work, like transporting stones and rocks from one place to the other and back.

I asked her - why did they do that? What they could gain from forcing people to do Sisyphus's work?

This is how i see it: If they would torture people without purpose (with labor) they would make people die sooner = more bodies to dispose = more problem. Why couldn't they just keep prisoners in baracks untill there was an actual work to be done? If in this case they couldn't fit new prisoners - why didin't they dispose those prisoners right away, since there were no work be done and they only waste food on them? It just doesn't add up.

Her answer was "because they were just cruel, and they wanted to humiliate and torture them". What the hell? I refuse to belive that's true. There's a war going on on every front, and am I suppose to belive they held random prisoners only to mess with them to finally kill them? This is poor strategy, poor planning and lots of money wasted. It even wasn't about making people scared of nazis, since we all know nazis put much effort to make auchwitz look like an awesome prison to be in.

So my question is this - why did they do it?

tl;dr: Why nazis sometimes forced prisoners to do meaningless work instead of something where they could gain more?

The way it worked -to my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong - is: The inheritance is divided more or less equally amongst the sons instead of falling to say the oldest or most able son.

This seems like a more just system, fair enough . But aren't it's flaws obvious? Wouldn't the land be to small to be used effectively by anyone's son after a few generations? Doesn't this create even more strife than it solves?

Perhaps I misunderstand something. Am i thinking too much of inheritance as land and this mainly meant things like slaves and weapons? Was population growth to slow to constantly create the problematic sitution discribed above? If it did was emigrating an option?

If not though conflicts like Karl and Karlmann must have been something common. Nevertheless it worked for centuries. So, again my question: How did this sustain itself?

Were they executed because they were one of the first cases or how many others were executed? I just watched Bridge of Spies and was wondering if James Britt Donovan changed the way that spies were sentenced

[deleted]

Let's say I am a french cuirasser in a battle during one of the Napoleonic wars and my horse is killed by a gunshot. I'm fine and not near any enemy soldiers. What do I do? Do I retreat to get another horse? Join the infantry or just sit the rest of the fight out? As always please alert me of any misunderstandings that may exist in my question.

Did they even know what the US was? Did Perry have to explain it to them?

I read somewhere that the Japanese had the Dutch keep them informed about world events as part of their trade deal. Would the Dutch have told them about the Revolutionary war, and events happening in the Americas?

In Mike Duncan's The History of Rome podcast he mentions that Julius Caesar was planning a massive invasion of the east, then up through the steppe of eastern europe, and then into germania from the east when he was assassinated.

Is there a good book or other resource to read about this planned invasion on the odds of him pulling it off? Anyone have any insight? On the fiction side it would be the basis of a great alternative history piece.

I'm not sure if this is accurate, but I'm watching The Great War YouTube channel and on his map of the Western Front it appears that in the south there are areas where it goes into Germany. Was there any difference between the front that we hear the most about, in France, and the little bit that dips into Germany? I assume it was just business as usual and that the international borders didn't really mean anything here, but you never think of any of the war being fought in Germany.