For instance, if I wanted to find the materials Galileo or Newton read, or find out who influenced Copernicus or Fibonacci.

I learned that Hitler and Mussolini used violence in the streets during their rise to power to intimidate opponents. Did the police forces ever come into conflict with them? It seems like a complete anomaly in terms of modern society to have political groups not in complete power using violence openly - let alone the underdogs. Has this happened anywhere else?

Was the rise in paramilitary groups widespread across Europe in the aftermath of WWI? Did the governments of Europe respond in any effective way, or were the groups for the most part too small for them to have a large-scale response?

The Azeris had more troops, artillery, helicopters, tanks etc. the Armenians looked very weak in comparison. How were the Armenians able to win so easily, when they were clearly out gunned and out numbered?

I found a throwaway reference from Gibbon about a Chinese prince called Mamgo. (sp?) Supposedly he was the last scion of a deposed dynasty and he led his army westward where they took service with the Persians before switching to the Romans.

The only other thing I can find online is a suggestion that he's reputedly the ancestor of one of the Armenian noble families.

Can /r/Askhistorians shed more light on this chap please? I'm sure there's a great story to found.

I've heard this being tossed around, with some people arguing that it was a pagan symbol converted to a Christian one, some saying it was a modified Christian symbol, and some saying something else entirely.

Where did this symbol come from?

It seems like a King, believed to be the divinely appointed ruler of the earth, would be see themselves as above reproach or real sin. And what rank of priest would have the right to judge their acts and assign punishment? Only a peer could do such a thing I would think.

Context: I'm trying to explain to a group of audience that people in the past did not really "love their country", because nationalism was not a thing back then. They argue that even in the past, people know about the differences between their versus other cultures, they called others "barbarians", they fought and died for their states, etc. therefore, that is nationalism.

My question is: How do modern historians define nationalism? People fight and die for their country just like they did in the past, what is the difference between our sense of "love my country" with our ancestors? At which point in history did nationalism started?

Thanks for helping.

I'm trying to find quality informative nonfiction. I've already plowed through Kissingers books and a few of The Great Courses lectures, I was wondering if anyone knew of any other good listens.

Okay, this informational itch I've got is a bit complex and open-ended, so bear with me!

As is common knowledge, it's traditional among English-speaking seafarers refer to ships as female. For example, in Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World, you'll hear things like... "The Surprise is not old; no one would call her old. She has a bluff bow, lovely lines. She's a fine seabird: weatherly, stiff and fast... very fast, if she's well handled. No, she's not old; she's in her prime."

I've heard tell that this isn't the case for every culture, though: for example, that in Poland, ships are considered male. Trying to find out more about this particular topic has been an amazing headache. Especially in the case of languages with grammatical gender!

So that's the core of my question: How would a seafarer refer to a ship, depending on the time period and language they spoke? For example, was there a difference in how an Old English, Old Scots, or Middle English-speaking sailor would refer to a ship compared to Modern English sailors? How would this differ from French, Danish, Russian, or Chinese sailors? What about sailors from Archaic/Ancient Greece, or the Roman Republic/Empire?

The reason I've asked here and not in a language forum is due to both the historical angle (how were things done in earlier cultures and languages, and what evidence do we have for it?) as well as the fact that this is fairly niche information that I wouldn't expect an average native speaker (or even a linguist) to know.

Thank you in advance!

Hey, so, I've been doing a lot of reading about ancient rome, and I can't make heads or tails of the difference between a senator and a magistrate (if there is any).

Were all roman senators magistrates of some sort? (Questors, Praetors, etcetera?) or were there non-magisterial senators?

Also, were Military Tribunes part of the senate or not? I've seen conflicting information.

Thanks

Hi there /r/askhistorians ! Before any of you throw the book list at me, I'll say that I've read through it, but the problem is that in the book list there is no mention of any books which looks at the Russian situation during the great war.

There are books about the other great powers such as Germany, France and the British among several others in the list, except Russia.

So I hope some of you could guide me towards any books which details the conflict from Russia's side and the internal problems which rose up because of the war.

I've found two books about the Russian revolution in the list, named ''The Russian Revolution'' and ''A People's Tragedy: The Russian Revolution'' but as I've said, there is nothing about Russia during the war. I also found the book called ''George, Nicholas, and Wilhelm'' which details the events and the politics before the war so i got that covered.

Bonus: If you could also find any books detailing the rule of Nicholas the II of Russia, was it any good/bad, the opinion of the people etc. I would highly appreciate it.

Edit: I'll also apologize if this isn't the right place to ask about book recommendations.

Why not use the same denominations (e.g., 25-dollar bills and 25-cent coins)?

I want to read their motivations.

I've been reading about the history of this area of the world lately, and I'm just curious about this. In one book I'm reading, Thomas Friedman's From Beirut to Jerusalem, (which I find totally engrossing--but any thoughts on its academic merit in general?) it says that when Israeli forces began their invasion of Lebanon in the early 80s, the soldiers were enchanted by the Lebanese women, some of whom were receptive to the soldiers because so many of their husbands were away in Brazil. I asked myself, why Brazil? So I did some googling, and found that there's a relatively large Arab population in Brazil nowadays, mostly of Lebanese and Syrian descent, and many of whose parents and grandparents arrived in Brazil in the late 19th century because they were fleeing Ottoman tyranny.

So what I take from those two facts is that Lebanese and Syrians have had a special relationship with Brazil for at least a hundred years. So this is what I'm curious about: why Brazil? It seems like a random country on the other side of the world. Did Brazil offer refugee status to Lebanese/Syrians in the 19th century, and the partnership continued from there?

For years I've been witnessing the debate of what mattered most to southerners in the 1800s, excessive taxes or an ability to own slaves. What first hand sources do you guys have to find out directly what justifications were used by South Carolinians to secede? I've also been told there were speech-givers that took SC's justification for secession and went touring in other states to help them decide to secede as well. Does anyone have any direct sources on this? What were they saying and why?

Definitely not asking for opinions so we can start a debate, just direct sources from southerners of the time.

I love the Middle Ages, but I've never had a good understanding of the mechanics medieval warefare. I have a list of specific questions, and also would appreciate random other facts that would help my understanding.

• How did they begin? Did the two sides agree on a "starting time" or did one side simply start attacking the other?
• How long did they last?
• How did they end? Did one side surrender with something like a white flag, start retreating, or run away? Were there officially discussed treaties?
• What happened to the losing side's campsite? Did the winning side give them time to pack up and leave? Or did they have to abandon their possessions in their retreat?
• How high were casualties (average)? Was the losing side allowed to collect/bury their dead? Or did the winning side take care of that?

Edit: to be more specific, I'm thinking early to high middle ages.