Christianity became the religion of the Roman Empire just a few hundred years after its creation and spread throughout parts of Europe, Africa, and Arabia before Islam. Why didn't Judaism ever spread like Christianity did once it was conceived? There may have been small groups of Jews in different places but it never gained a foothold in the world like Christianity did pre-Islam.

Okay, so I'm in the middle of writing a novel and I am trying to keep it as realistic as possible. There are many things I am going to ask, so apologies in advance.

1: What was the point of musket lines where people lined up and shot all at once? Wouldn't that be extremely dangerous considering that a single hand grenade would wipe everybody out along with making them easy targets?

2: How were cavalry utilized in combat for the ancient European civilizations? I don't need to know about the Mongols, because everyone knows about them.

3: Why did people transition to using muskets when longbows were still far superior in range?

4: How were heavily armored troops dealt with in combat? I've read about how durable armor was during medieval times, and was wondering how people would get around it.

Can somebody please clarify this point for me. The way I understood it was the following:

The Prophet dies and Abu Baker consolidates power in the Arabian Peninsula. Ummar comes into power and begins a war of aggression with the Byzantine empire.

I got into a debate today however where the last point is disputed. Its claimed that the Byzantines and the Arabian Peninsula were actually having an ongoing conflict from long before. Can somebody verify of this is true or whether it is a common view among any group of historians?

Also as an aside is there a list of conflicts where the muslims wee clearly aggressors? Thanks!

[deleted]

So late 1944 and early 1945.

Preferably written at the time of or shortly after. I realize there are Codices but those are often written by friars who used converted natives as sources of information. Do any truly native accounts of the conquests still exist? Oral transcriptions would work to.

Seeing that Japan was economically devastated by the war, why didn't more civilians move to the United States?

Edit: thanks for the responses! They really helped me understand why there was a sudden reduction of *emigrants during this time period. I was interviewing a Japanese American (for a school paper) Kibei who moved back to America in 1947 after the war and was wondering why so little Japanese decided to do the same.

This is one that's bothered me for a while. I've posted it before, and didn't get an answer... So I was prepared to leave it, but this burning question got into my dream last night...

It's basically, when did the majority of people know that the Earth wasn't flat?

I remember in school being told that Christopher Columbus proved that the Earth was round by circumnavigating the globe. But I have been told repeatedly ever since that that's not true: eveyone has pretty much always known that the Earth was round. But that always makes me wonder "who's, everyone?" and "really, always?"

For instance, I remember hearing that the ancient Greeks knew that the Earth was round, because when they watched a ship approaching, they saw the sails rising over the horizon first. But what would the average ancient Grecian have said if you'd asked him the shape of the world.

Or in the 15th century when Christopher Columbus famously didn't prove that the Earth wasn't flat, did the average Spanish peasant really know that the Earth was round.

When did it become that average people had that level of scientific literacy?

Hi - I'm looking for sources that may shed some light on the experience of Korean nationals who worked as interpreters or other contract service for the US Military in the period between WWII and the Korean War. I'm interested in both primary and secondary sources.

Context: Family member was supposed to have worked as a interpreter for the US Military Governer of South Korea, LTG Hodge. He was presumed captured and killed by the North Koreans and I'm interested in gaining some insight into what he may have done.

Thanks in advance for any pointers.

I've read a little of George Orwell's writing on the Spanish Civil War, World War II, and of course his opinions on Communism and totalitarianism generally are well known.

I'm trying to understand his opinion on the use of force by democracies more generally. There are traditional left wing calls against the profiteering wars are used to enable. Yet he talks about war being often the lesser of two evils, which is not something you hear the left saying today.

How can we understand this "contradictory" view on the armed forces, from a contemporary, perhaps contemporary left wing pacifist, perspective?

I tried to do a search for something that would answer my questions, but on my mobile it was difficult and I was unable to find an answer.

Basically, I'm curious if anyone that is knowledgeable of the time of the American Revolutionary War and the preceeding years before the Declaration, knows if there were any American-born colonists that served as Royal Navy officers? Or perhaps as officers in some sort of naval militia similar to the militias that the British Army had in the colonies... or if such a thing even existed for the Navy?

I know that there were many American-born men that later served in the American Revolution that had been members, and officers, in the British Army (or its militias) previously, but I don't know of any that were naval officers prior to the start of the war -- I can only seem to find some that had been merchantmen and then joined the Continental Navy to fight the British.

Would there have been any colonial naval militias made up of British-American colonists like the various British Army militias in the Colonies?

Were men born in the colonies even able to join the Royal Navy at all? I believe they were still considered British citizens prior to the Declaration of Independence, despite being born outsisde of the British Isles and lacking true representation in Parliament. But I've heard that the men that made up the officer corps of the RN at the time were largely (or completely?) of middle and upper-class aristocratsic and noble families with connections in the Admiralty and Government. Was this true and would it have prevented colonists from becoming officers in the Royal Navy?

I know there were cases of Americans/colonists being pressed into service with the Royal Navy, but my primary questions are whether or not there were colonial-born officers in the Royal Navy or if the colonies had their own naval militia under British command like the Army did before the war broke out and the Continental Navy was formed.

Apologies if this isn't exactly written clearly or if there is a thread that answers these questions that I was unable to find. Links to such a thread would be appreciated if they do exist and I would be happy to try to further clarify my questions if my post was rambling too much. Thanks in advance to anyone that might be able to help!

Usually, it seems like if a non-royal family gains great power, there's at least a significant chance that at some point the non-royal family will formally usurp the royal office itself. (E.g., Pepin the Short's usurpation of the Merovingians, Cao Pi's usurpation of the Han, Selim I's usurpation of the Abbasid caliphate.)

In Japan, it seems this has never happened. The Imperial family itself has only sporadically held de facto power throughout Japanese history, but it has never actually been formally usurped.

Why? Was it just luck, or were there something distinctive about Japanese institutions or culture that made the Chrysanthemum Throne either a less desirable target or less feasible to attain than elsewhere?

I'm currently writing an essay on this topic, and I'm having a hard time narrowing down my research. I've come across the idea of broad secularization, but it seems that this isn't really accepted anymore. Is there currently a consensus as to the effects of industrialization on religious belief in Europe, or is it too broad a topic?

Reference to primary sources would be appreciated.

I have always assumed, from my high school history classes, that a majority of Holocaust deaths were from death camps and concentration camps. But I've recently been told that most of the deaths were from roving death squads.

I'm just curious to know the rough breakdown of the means of death. More detailed information is nice, but any insight will do.

Are they counting the Confederates as Americans as well? If so, is that what gives that war such a high death toll for Americans?

What were some major similarities and differences between the Aztecs and the ottomans? I need to do a Venn diagram on this and I can barley find anything.