I mean someone who acted as a bureaucrat in the logistical management of great crimes of state; a 'desk-killer' who without being violent or radical in their treatment of others (even highly averse to violence, and with a stable family and emotional life), was nonetheless seemingly able to dispatch untold numbers to their deaths without registering the implications of their actions on a human level.

I know that millions of functionaries participated in Communist state crimes; I'm asking if there was anyone of the stature of an Eichmann, a particular individual who embodied 'thoughtlessness' in the face of industrial-scale evil in the way Hannah Arendt describes in her book Eichmann in Jerusalem.

I'm also aware that later research has put Arendt's description of Eichmann in doubt, that really he had great personal conviction in his hatred. I'm not convinced that he adhered to anything but popular Nazi clichés, but I hope the question is still meaningful. Who, if anyone, was a 'thoughtless' participant in Communist genocides?

edit: if you want to downvote, at least leave a comment saying why.

I've often head this stated in this sub but it's never been expanded upon.

Aside from the magic, which I see as a way to represent what they perceived as the unknown, why is it wrong?

Talking to my friends, you would be under the impression that the Vikings were the greatest warriors that ever lived. But myself and none of my friends can actually name a single battle that Vikings fought in. Actually I know about the Battle of Stamford Bridge.

So I'd like it if people could name a few key battles for me to study, where Vikings won decisively and other where the Vikings were defeated decisively. Overall, would you compare the Vikings to other major conquering forces like the Romans, or the Mongols in terms of massive success?

I am currently studying the poetry of Wilfred Own, specifically 'Anthem for Doomed Youth'. The main theme of the poem seems to be the apathy shown toward those killed in action, specifically by the general public and religious authorities/institutions.

So is this apathy toward those killed in action as expressed in the poem representative of the general reaction of the public and religious institutions/authorities?

Were there any notable people of Mixed Origins in the Roman Empire? such as an Emperor?

If Anthony and Cleopatra had a Child, how would their half Roman half Egyptian/Macedonian Child be treated in upper class roman society?

I'm Canadian and when i learned about it in high school the teacher really pumped it up and made it sound really important but when i asked an American friend about it whose really into history he barely knew anything about it. Now i know it was an important defining moment for Canada and I'm not discounting the importance of that but did it really have any effect on the war and did Canada really act exceptionally or is it just puffed up to be more important then it actually is?

I'm looking, ideally, for a comprehensive work on the history of the intellectual milieu of Late Antiquity. Does anybody know a work that deals both with the rise of various Christianities and the pagan religious movements of the same time?

Alternatively, i'd also be interested in good recommendations on books that deal with Christianity (arian, athanasian etc) and Neoplatonism - Plotinus but also Iamblichus and Proclus - separately.

What i'm really interested in is attaining an overview of the intellectual milieu of the Late Roman Empire.

Thanks in advance!

I was talking to my brother about George Fraser's "Flashman and the Redskins", and somewhere along our discussion he brought up an anecdote from one of his coworkers. The guy told him a story (and it may just be a story) that a person in Custer's troop brought a real gun to a reenactment of the battle of Little Bighorn in the late '70s. He shot 10 people participating as indians before someone on that team grabbed a real tomahawk and killed him.

In this story, Mr. Tomahawk ran away and was later hunted, along with some of his associates for whatever reason, by "concerned citizens". The townsfolk tracked down only one of them and scalped him alive as some sort of ironic punishment. I guess. Anyway, my brother's coworker went on to tell him that the army was eventually brought in to take down the whole lot of them. They did. When they faced off, the group of First Nations people were on horseback, but didn't hold a candle to the military and were shot dead.

Neither myself nor my brother could hardly even begin to dispute it because it was wholly possible. Anyway, we're wondering:

How likely is it that any of this is true?

Are there any records of such things?

By 'myth' I mean the myth of Native Americans having the ability to make it rain. They may well have danced, but I doubt they controlled the weather!

Has anyone even suggested it in ancient times?

I know this is quite a broad question, but in general what are some typical errors we see in the classic wild west movies?

Did people actually sleep on the dirt by the fire without any type of shelter as we sometimes see in the movies?

Were gunfights as common as they make them out to be?

The Anglo-Saxon invasion of England is always portrayed as a naval invasion using ships very similar to the later viking ships. According to "Vikinger i Krig", the use of sails is likely one of the development that triggered the viking raids on Europe. If this is true, why did the Angles, Saxons, Jutes etc have access to this technology long before the viking, despite using otherwise very similar ships?

I can't say much about historical materialism I think the question is fairly simple. Among laymen it seems to get a lot of respect but among historians it seems to be viewed as a something that contributed to historical analysis but is something we've moved past.

on the French Revolution in particular I have some writings from Marx that I think work to show what I'm asking about.

The revolution of 1789 (at least in Europe) had as its prototype only the [English] revolution of 1648; the revolution of 1648 only the revolt of the Netherlands against Spain. Both revolutions were a century in advance of their prototypes not only in time but also in content.

In both revolutions the bourgeoisie was the class that really headed the movement. The proletariat and the non-bourgeois strata of the middle class had either not yet any interests separate from those of the bourgeoisie or they did not constitute independent classes or class sub-divisions. Therefore, where they opposed the bourgeoisie, as they did in France in 1793 and 1794, they fought only for the attainment of the aims of the bourgeoisie, even if not in the manner of the bourgeoisie. All French terrorism was nothing but a plebeian way of dealing with the enemies of the bourgeoisie, absolutism, feudalism and philistinism.

The revolutions of 1648 and 1789 were not English and French revolutions, they were revolutions of a European type. They did not represent the victory of a particular class of society over the old political order; they proclaimed the political order of the new European society. The bourgeoisie was victorious in these revolutions, but the victory of the bourgeoisie was at the same time the victory of a new social order, the victory of bourgeois ownership over feudal ownership, of nationality over provincialism, of competition over the guild, of the division of land over primogeniture, of the rule of the landowner over the domination of the owner by the land, of enlightenment over superstition, of the family over the family name, of industry over heroic idleness, of bourgeois law over medieval privileges.

I'm aware that marx wasn't the first or only one to present this type of history but I thought these writings showed what I was talking about

Its a neat explanation of the French revolution that gives a cause for its happening that is easy to wrap my head around and seems to make sense. Which is why I can't help being so suspicious about it. How is this "class conflict" version of history viewed when applied to the French Revolution? The three estates make it especially easy to look at it this way.

I'm a college student and I would love to go with some archeologist to check out some undiscovered ancient cities.

Is it possible to do this without a degree in archeology?

Recently, I have gotten interested in the Renaissance and am looking at the different sports in it. So far I have only found the book Jousting in Medieval Iberia. It would be great if anyone could recommend some other books.