By WW1, Russia was practically still in feudalism. Serfdom was still a thing and industrialization was not very widespread. Apparently this was not a new problem, because Peter the Great was well aware of there backward-ness as far back as the Seven Year’s War. Why did Russian society lag behind the rest of Europe?

More specifically, what was the exchange between civilizations?

Did Egyptians know what Akkad and Ur were? Did the Land of Punt trade with anyone besides Egypt? How much contact did civilizations have during that time?

Thanks!

What were the causes (etc.)? Thanks in advance :)

I am curious why such dark and morbid names were chosen for these two ships that were lost in the Franklin Expedition. Of course it all seems somewhat prescient somehow in retrospect, but was this part of a naming tradition of the time? I know that the Erebus was the second ship with the name in the fleet, so if it is a tradition, it may date back, but it's hard to find an answer though the usual means because there is so much about the Franklin Expedition itself out there, making searching through key words difficult. Many thanks in advance for any interesting context you can provide!

I have always wondered, I could call myself anything actually. Emperor, King of dogs, Queen, Tsar... etc.. Whatever my mind pleases... Who would come and stop me from doing so?

So I’ve recently been reading a book about the Vietnam War and the first few chapters discuss events before the Americans became involved, and I’m just really struck by French actions at Dien Bien Phu. As it’s presented in the book I’m reading, the French decided to amass their forces in the middle of a valley intending to draw out the communist Vietnamese forces. Now even only knowing battle tactics from movies and pop history books, intentionally giving up the high ground, and actually surrounding yourself by high ground, seems like an incredibly poor choice. Of course the communists never came out to fight army to army, but shelled them from the mountaintops and shot down planes and helicopters trying to supply them. Seems like anyone could have seen this coming. So my question is, what possible logic was there in the French plan? And did anybody French, American, British, or Vietnamese see what a poor idea this was?

What did he think was going to happen after 1001 years?

Did Napoléon ever comment or express any opinion on Simón Bolívar or his idea of Gran Colombia? There was probably a very short period where they were both technically fighting the Spanish at the same point in time, so was that ever acknowledged?

Seeing various maps of France through the Middle Ages there are often large areas of it depicted as independent/autonomous with a small area around Paris described as the ‘Royal Domain’, as opposed to other Kingdoms, such as England, where they are shown as undivided realms on the same map. What’s the real story behind these maps? Why did it happen, why did it last so long and how was it put to a stop?

Classicist Robert Graves wrote a description of the Olympian palace and thrones, including the macabre detail of Ares' throne having a cushion of human skin.

My question: where did Graves draw these details from? What classical Greek poem or play describes what the palace of Olympus looks like?

TL;DR - writing essay about Vietnam, looking for sources that map out reaction to the war from western and eastern viewers in relation to specific media.

Please remove if not allowed.

Hi all,

​

I study photography at university, and I'm writing an essay about war photography and desensitization focusing on the Vietnam war as it was the first widely televised war. I'm a little stuck as to where to find sources.

For clarity, i study photography so this will primarily be looking at photojournalism and video-based news coverage :) (also not looking for answers just good places where i might be able to start to find more relevant information thank you!)

If you watch basically anything (especially period pieces) the Irish as police is a well-worn trope. Is this a real phenomenon? If so, why did the Irish of all people get so involved in policing, and if not, where does the stereotype come from?

It's said that in addition to vows of poverty and chastity the Templars also took a vow not to bathe. Is this true? If so, how did they avoid constantly being covered in skin infections and cysts? The gear and the environment we deal with in the Middle East today isn't all that different from what they had to deal with fighting Saracens back then. If anything our kit is more breathable than theirs was and if a guy didn't shower for even a day or two and was wearing full kit he was more than likely to get a gnarly cyst.

Did they have some loophole where they could wash with a cloth or something and that wasn't technically bathing?

I was talking to a friend at the time of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He told me that the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were tough decisions, but the right ones as they resulted in Japan's unconditional surrender, because the other bombings also killed, burned, destroyed.... and any chance of the war continuing must be eliminated. Japan did not surrender and this could inspire other countries to prolong the war. In the end, thanks to the bombs, Japan came out as a victim and spared its emperor.

Is there any historiography that contradicts this version?

The full quote goes as follows:

"All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a White has no superiority over a Black nor a Black has any superiority over a White except by piety and good action. Learn that every Muslim is a brother to every Muslim and that the Muslims constitute one brotherhood. Nothing shall be legitimate to a Muslim which belongs to a fellow Muslim unless it was given freely and willingly."

I suspected this because it seems strange to me that there would be a need to mention this in the sermon, as I figured that there wouldn't be a difference between Black people or White people at the time, but I haven't found a translation that doesn't contain this part.

So, why did Muhammad feel the need to make this distinction in the first place?

Thanks!

First off is my understanding correct that they couldn't really do damage to one another with standard melee weapons? If so, I imagine they didn't just trade ineffectual sword strikes. What was the goal in this situation? Was there a difference in a large battle versus 2 knights duelling?
Also, were heavy hammers and maces able to do damage where swords could not? If that's true then why did they not become the dominant weapon?