I've been researching the rebellion, and I can't decide whether or not it was a product of Chinese petit bourgeois chafing against a Mongol rulership or if the rebellion should be credited to a the Maitreyan/Manichean ideology of the White Lotus or both... or if I'm off base with both ideas.

[deleted]

According to the movie, Goering is smiling arrogantly as he walks with a white flag towards the Americans; he wonders when he will be meeting General Eisenhower to shake hands and drink wine together. Goering is visibly shaken when instead, the Allied soldiers throw handcuffs on him and say that he is under arrest, pending investigation, as a war criminal.

Is this an accurate portrayal of what Nazi leaders expected would happen when they surrendered, as opposed to what actually happened? It sounds incredibly delusional to me. How did they think they would be received after a devastating global war, evidence of the Holocaust, etc?

Was there any dynastic strife between overlapping kings or back and forth of influence between the two? Was there a fixed relationship between the Norman States at all?

I'm not exactly asking whether Bob Dylan was better than some classical composer, but I am almost asking that. To restate the question in a more acceptable way: what might a future musical canon (as in the literary canon), which includes both 20th century and pre-20th century figures look like? Would It be Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner, and Stravinsky, etc., ignoring 20th century popular music? Does it make any sense to include some figures of 20th century popular music in with the greats?

I know the question has been asked several times here why Quebec didn't join the colonists in rebellion and the answer has been because of the British policy of tolerance to them. However after the French entered the war was there any change in Quebec? Were there any who viewed the French entry into the war, as opportunity to rejoin France?

I've been listening to a few 19th century classics lately. I've noticed they mention a lot of aspects of Greek (or maybe Roman) mythology that would be considered pretty esoteric today. I don't have the physical books with me, so I can't quote any specific examples, but it happens quite frequently.

Did the authors do this to show off how formally educated they were, or did the average 19th century reader just have a more expansive of mythology than we do now?

[deleted]

I apologize if the time frame is too broad, and if pogrom is not an appropriate label for anti-Jewish violence in this time period. I recalled an anecdote my rabbi included in a sermon a couple years back about a particular Jewish village where the rabbi and his congregants donned armor to resist a pogrom. He only mentioned it in passing but it stuck with me and recently popped into my head. I distinctly recall him mentioning armor, which led me to this timeframe.

Are there any recorded events that could have inspired this story? If so, how would the Jews have obtained the armor and weapons, and given that they probably were not trained fighters, were they at all successful?

Did the Catholic Church use this method to change the culture and religion of regions it's followers conquered?

I ask mostly because I'm wondering what exactly the guys that wrote Deuteronomy 22:5 were thinking of.

[deleted]

To elaborate, I'm not talking about something that would immediately disqualify him, like a medical factor (if I remember correctly, being flat-footed was enough to get disqualified).

Instead, what I mean is something like a personality trait. Maybe it turns out that the man is undisciplined, doesn't take orders well, or doesn't work well within a unit. If a man has a personality unfit for a soldier, would the American military just make do? Or would he get kicked out?

I want to ask how the borders of various nations created out of the Ottoman Empire were decided upon and how that's effected modern history but I think the question's to broad so I'll limmit its scope: How did France, Britain and the league of nations decide upon the borders and identity of modern Syria, Iraq and Turkey and how did that effect history afterward? (Up until 1995). I know Turkey collapsed and rebelled soon after the partition but I guess I'm asking how it was effected and if that effect lasted.

I'm reading Ernle Bradford's Hannibal, and he mentions the difficulty the Romans had pushing around ~80,000 men, because it was twice their usual maximum. Four legions, or around 40,000 men, is the most they'd ever have in one spot. Why was that?

I know the simple answer here is "four legions was usually more than enough." I'm just wondering if there's an extra interesting reason to do with, say, maximum audible range of signalling trumpets.

Thanks.

Across the 20th century, there were several notable civil rights activists who tried to improve the legal standing of African Americans without much success, despite the backing of groups like the NAACP. W.E. Dubois is the most obvious example.

During World War 2, there was the Double V campaign, where African Americans worked to achieve "victory abroad", by winning the war, and "victory at home", by winning equal legal standing. As far as I can tell, this was fruitless.

However, the 50s-60s civil rights movement was inarguably a massive success, as the passage of the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act essentially destroyed any institutional racism enshrined into law.

Why was a victory like this not possible earlier? Were black people noticeably better-off in 1956 than they were in 1930? Or did the popularity of television allow these ideas to be spread?

Did the general white populace have less animosity toward blacks in the 50s than they did earlier? If so, what caused this?

What was the christian population of the Levant at the time of the Crusades? as a percentage of muslims? how did they react to the invasion by the crusaders? as a liberation or just another plunder?

Now time and time again, many myths, like about a short war or walking into machinguns have been disproven, and yet the war was still increadibly devastating and brutal. So where did it actually go wrong?

The Roman origin myth included a descent from the Trojans via Aeneas, not from Greeks, so surely that wasn't how they explained it. How then, seeing that they were highly infatuated with Greek culture and had much familiarity with the Greek language and must have noticed many similar words in Greek and Latin, did they explain that fact? Conversely, how did the Greeks explain it?