Some fellow online was insisting that London is only the capital of England; I wanted to find some great evidence that could demonstrate otherwise but I couldn't really find any.

Why didn't other cultures write down their history to the extent that Europeans did?

There is a claim in Herodotus (4.42) that the Egyptian King Necho commissioned some Phoenicians to sail around Africa, and that they succeeded in doing so.

When I first heard about this I thought it was kinda ludicrous, but I guess I don't really know how plausible it would be for a ship designed for Mediterranean conditions to survive hugging the coast, find whatever supplies were required and survive contact with the locals. It just seems unlikely given how difficult it often was for modern explorers. Still I wonder if I'm unfairly discounting the capabilities of ancient sailors.

Is there any prevailing opinion on whether such a voyage is likely to have occurred?

Also in the same passage it talks about an early canal in Egypt between the Nile and the Arabian Gulf. Is it known if there is any truth to that claim? Would be a prerequisite for a complete circumnavigation I suppose.

[deleted]

Contemporary republicans and conservatives will often swear up and down that the southern strategy is a myth, claiming that liberals are and always have been responsible for most of the racism in this country. They then usually cite the fact that Lincoln was a republican. So was the southern strategy real or a myth?

The two varieties that have those properties would be Heavenly Blue and Pearly Gates, AFAIK

I'm basically trying to get the gist of the historiographical debates surrounding it and also peasant culture and beliefs.

So far I've ordered a book by Moon. I have access to JSTOR as well, so any articles would be great

I know that in the later stages of the war, aircraft were used to find targets for the artillery, but I want to know exactly how they did it. Did the pilot have a map with a grid, and radioed the battery to fire on a particular square?

Hello! I recently ran into a comment regarding Muhammed and the beginning of Islam and there are some things I cannot confirm or deny, here is the comment:

Islam is an ideology which through it's authoritarian nature seeks to dominate its host society into accepting its values. It goes all the way back to Islam's origins. Muhammad was born in a town where the government was ruled via consensus of upper class families (sort of like a house of lords in parliament). After coming up with the concept of Islam, Muhammad asked everyone in the town to convert to his religion and accept his sole leadership (autocracy/dictatorship). When they refused to do so, he started recruiting followers in secret to increase his manpower and political clout. Like any self-respecting group of people facing an insurrection against the status quo, the townspeople shunned Muhammad and his followers until relations devolved into a physical conflict. The town's leaders tried to compromise with Muhammad, expressing that they would accept his god if he would accept theirs; however, unwilling to compromise, Muhammad again insisted on having everyone convert to his religion and accept him as their sole leader. Due to the continuation of the conflict, life became pretty inhospitable for him and his followers until they decided to move to another town to recuperate and build strength. Once they succeeded in increasing their numbers, they waged war against people from their old town until they achieved total victory. From there on, everyone in the town had to convert to Islam and the religion went on to conquer all of the Middle East, North Africa, Spain, and Anatolia. Through the process of conquest, Islam destroyed both the Byzantine and Persian empires.

I understand it's not so black and white and supersimplified.

But was Islam really funded in this much forced conversation?

And how much did Islam have to do with the fall of the Byzantine and Persian empires?

Edit;format

Could some people maybe suggest a few?

I've been reading Oliver Twist recently and would like some background and context on how it was for the workhouse children, and children of poverty such as orphans, at the time. All suggestions greatly appreciated.