[deleted]

Here’s the passage regarding the Syrians in Orleans:

A vast crowd of citizens came out to meet him, carrying flags and banners, and singing songs in his praise. The speech of the Syrians contrasted sharply with that of those using Gallo-Roman and again with that of the Jews, as they each sang his praise in their own tongue.

From this is sounds like there were once large Syriac-speaking communities in parts of Merovingian Gaul. How long did they remain a distinct nationality? Were they assimilated into the later French people?

(Also—what language would the Gallic Jews have been speaking then, that was sharply different from Syriac?)

I am aware that the Nazis built hatred for Jewish people to give the white German people something to hate and build support for themselves, but apparently the Holocaust was kept largely secret. So did they have some sort of over-arching strategy, Or did they hate Jewish people to the point of feeling they had to be killed for the sake of them being exterminated?

And to narrow the subject, I'm really just talking about western Europe...

It seems historically, attempts to unite/conquer Europe fail. The Romans lacked the ability to bring in Germany/Baltic regions. The Franks are the only ones who notably united France/Germany. Napoleon's conquests lasted only a few years before falling apart.

Europe, as compared to other large nations/empires is a much smaller geographical area - like China for example. So I suspect it isn't just the difficulty in maintaining a large empire.

Culturally Europeans aren't vastly different from eachother, at least no more than any other similarly geographically situated group. Yet Europe has a thing about remaining fractured into the smallest possible units that it's a huge step just to get close cultural tied areas to unify - like the challenges it took to unite Germany or Italy, or even places like Great Britain.

Basically, Europe has a bunch of very tiny, but fiercely independent countries, which is something we don't see to the same extent in the rest of the world.

I know that radio had been invented some time before 1914, but from what I understand one of the biggest differences between WWI and WWII was communication difficulty; I mean physical runners were still used to communicate orders between the trenches on the western front. Telephone lines were used, but they're obviously easily cut by artillery fire and it ain't a trivial thing to lay down new cable after an advance. So you wind up with serious logistical difficulties after troop movement; "Now what -- where do we go? Who else that's participating in this advance made it? Should we keep going? Is backup coming? Are we being flanked?" Meanwhile, the support trench (equipped with telephone lines and everything) is gearing up for a counter-assault.

So why not radio? I assume it must have been a technological limitation -- were there practical "man-portable" radios at that time?

Are there any records or proof of Napoleon being at least part ethnically French, or was he completely Italian/Corsican?

Apologies if this is more of a questions for linguistics than history. It just doesn't seem to be as constant of a trend with Jesus or Moses/Abraham as names in Christrian and Jewish traditions.

In early 20th century America, people of Irish and Mediterranean descent were not considered "white". This suggests that "whiteness" is not directly related to skin pigmentation or being of European descent.

What steps did those groups have to make in order to become "white"?

What is the consensus among historians as to what American society considered to be "white" at that time?

Assuming "whiteness" is not directly connected to pigmentation or ethnicity, are other traditionally "non-white" groups in the process of becoming "white" (keeping in mind the 20-year rule), such as East Asians?

That is, were the "confederated" secessionist states actually organized in any different way with respect to one another compared to the "united" states to their north, or was it just a synonym the South chose to differentiate themselves?

I assume flintlocks had lower misfire rates and weren't reliant on a match which could go out, but did they have immediate tactical advantages over matchlocks? That is to say, if two armies, one armed with flintlocks and another with matchlocks fought, would the flintlocks have any tactical advantage?

My understanding is that both Gorbachev and Reagan talked about complete nuclear disarmament with both of them saying they wanted to eliminate all nuclear weapons by 2000. However, Reagan wanted to retain the right to eventually deploy SDI while Gorbachev wanted to limit SDI to a research project at the most.

If both the United States and Soviet Union would destroy their nuclear weapons then how could SDI be a threat?

Did Gorbachev fear that any weapons ban would be ineffective like 1970s Biological Weapons Convention? Did he fear that SDI was more then just an antiballistic missile system? Was it just a case of political target fixation?

Arabs imported countless of weapons from Soviet and European nations. But the narrative we normally accept is that they failed miserably utilizing them. Were there any "dangerous" weapons for Israelis then, which had potential to inflict serious damage, or even turn the tide if operated properly?

Some of my guess; AT-3 Sagger anti-tank missle, SA-6 Gainful anti-air missile both from Yom Kippur War.

EDIT: alot

EDIT 2: Maybe I should have used the word "effective". I presume Israeli intelligence had been very cautious for certain weapons they hadn't coped before. Considering Arab-Israeli conflicts were in the middle of Cold-War, there would have many Soviet weapons that technologically mesmerizing for its Western counterpart. I was trying to ask which weapon was the most "big deal" for Israel and Western intelligence. I presume "dangerous" is a right word because its about weapons.

What would be the colloquial yet correct form to refer to the king of the Holy Roman Empire in a conversation where it's not clear that you're talking about the HRE? I mean, you can say "Holy Roman Emperor", many people do it. "Holy Roman king" would be unusual and "German king" might need some clarification as well, same for "Roman king" or "king of the Romans". Would it be "king of the Holy Roman Empire"?

How rich would I have to be to go to a concert? Assuming I liked the music and wanted to hear it again, do I have an alternative other than again paying for the concert?

Region- Europe. Time- 1680-1850

It just seems so unlikely

For this age of growing literacy (and growing importance of literacy), I have a stack of solid references about Latin schools for boys and even a few mentions of rural parish schools. When it comes to daughters of the urban gentry, however, I see mostly unsupported--and contradictory--assertions and assumptions. Were girls mostly learning vernacular reading and other basic skills at home from their mothers (or not at all, as the experience of some Devotio moderna houses would suggest)? Were convent schools a significant force in girls' learning, or was their reach still limited before the sixteenth century?

I'd be very grateful for references either to primary sources (beyond the brief mention of a beguine school in Beatrijs of Nazareth's vita or Morgan le Fey being put to school in a nunnery) or, probably more likely, to secondary work that collates archival and other materials.

I'm interested in cities in the Holy Roman Empire (C14-15) in particular, but would welcome insight about anywhere in Europe or the Mediterranean world because it's all fascinating in the end.

The Juli were one of the great families of Rome, and Roman culture put a large emphasis on looking up to one's great ancestors. Who would some of the famous Juli whom Caesar would have looked up to while growing up, and what were they famous for?

So in other parts of reddit, Dan Carlins podcasts are frequently used as the gold standard of history. Then people that disagree pick apart various aspects of why he's wrong and how he's not a reputable source.

Even Carlin will frequently mention "I'm not a historian" in his podcast, giving you the impression that some of the information may be wrong. So what's your take on his work? No one is expecting him to have a masters level understanding of the subject matter he is tackling, but for people looking to listen to a new podcast as they work/work out et cetera, is it a worthwhile launch pad?

(I'm asking this as I've read all of Jared Diamonds works and only recently found out apparently he's about as historically accurate as The Patriot or Braveheart, pick your Mel Gibson film)