With Assata Shakur coming up in conversations I've been having, I was wondering if you guys could help shed light on the Black Liberation Army.

I know that they were targeted by COINTELPRO so some of the charges that were alleged against them could be false. But overall, to what extent is the characterization of the group as violent true?

Hey /r/askhistorians, first of all - you guys rock! I have learned so much interesting stuff in the past year and even distributed to some nice threads, thank you all for that!

On to my question.

Recently I remembered my Granddad earned a nice war medal back in WW2. Sadly it got lost in the depths of my brothers room. When I asked my grandma what he earned it for she said that he never told her, as that topic was not spoken of in their family life.

I remember it being a Ritterkreuz des Eisernen Kreuzes. And these are not too common.

And it got me thinking what my Granddad did to earn it. Is there some kind of place where I can find that out?

Some points that I know for a fact: He was stationed in Italy. He had a driver. He was a dentist. He said he was working a lot with the local population (partisans[?])

On to one of the things he told me I am not sure if its are true: He said he was in the Luftwaffe (He never flew in his life. He always drove or took a ship, even when visiting friends in England).

Sorry if I am offtopic, please redirect me if so. If you help me find out anything and I think the data isnt too sensible I will update you guys!

It's always struck me as odd that the small island nation I call home was the greatest global superpower a couple hundred years ago. Ancient/aboriginal Britain was so far behind the rest of Europe, so it would be interesting to find out what factors led to the British Empire.

So I just read Forsyth's "The Biafra Story". It was really fascinating, as the conflict is one I quite literally knew nothing about aside from the fact it happened, and Jello Biafra took his stage name from it. But, that being said, it left me with a lot of questions, which I was hoping you fine people might be able to assist with.

For starters, Forsyth is obviously pro-Biafra, and he makes no effort to hide this. The book was published while the war was still ongoing, and clearly is intended as a bit of boosterism for the cause. As portrayed by Forsyth, the Biafrans are the unambiguous force of good, and the Nigerians are only a half-step below literal Nazis. But just because Forsyth is biased doesn't mean he is wrong. So do most of the observations about Nigerian warcrimes hold water? And does his tilt in favor of Biafra cloud his perspective, or does he nevertheless present a rather fair treatment of their cause, namely that they really were "the good guys"?

A few others things that left me wondering. As it is portrayed in the book, up until the mid-1960s, it was Northern Nigeria who wanted to secede, and the only in '66 is there a sudden about face, with Biafra now the region not pressing for unity and wanting to go their own way. I don't feel the reasons behind this were portrayed satisfactorily. So what caused the change in positions so quickly?

Also ill explained was why Britain was so forcefully supportive. It comes off as a small cabal of civil servants directing policy in something no one higher up even cared about, and whether true or not, I fail to see what the UK stood to gain from their continued support. Peace and stability seemed in their best interest no matter what.

And lastly, Nigeria was supported by both the east AND the west!? The Soviets were giving them a good bit of aid! How did that come about? Biafra seems like the kind of thing the Soviets would have supported to the uninformed at least, yet in the middle of the cold war, you have Nigeria getting military aid from both sides. Did anyone make a big deal out of this?

So, thats what I really was let wondering, but if there is anything else worth touching on that Forsyth might have misrepresented, I'd love to hear it.

I know it's been mentioned since ancient Greece, but when did it become almost mainstream?

I am reading a book that's about a 1000 years old, and the author constantly mentions the equator, and how hot it is near it, but I can't understand what exactly was the frame of reference at these times.

The book is Theologus Autodidactus btw.

We're told Rome destroyed all things Carthage; simultaneously we're told that Rome liked to embellish the lives of their enemies. Has any physical evidence been discovered indicating Hannibal's crossing with elephants, interactions with the Centrones, or anything like this?

There's a kid I go to school with being racist on Facebook by saying that black people aren't as evolved as everyone else. Our genetic makeup is exactly the same, but that's not a strong argument to someone who can find pseudo-science more convincing. I'd like to say something, but I don't have enough anthropological/(socioeconomic?) knowledge on the subject to sound intelligent.

I'd like to know why Africa seems to be less developed than the rest of the world. How big of a part did racism and oppression play in the lack of progression (academically/scientifically) of the continent's societies?

Any other info would be helpful.

That image of him is on T-shirts, posters, badges... Why is he a hero when other historical revolutionaries remain in infamy?

Long before Lean and Six Sigma, was there a similar kind of discussion among managers about best practices. What were some of the hot production theories of this time? Or was it more about working longer hours and finding smaller hands?

In search of an English translation of the Egyptian Book Of The Dead. Especially something by scholars who have respect for the people and material, not by people with an agenda to debunk/discredit the work. Hard copy preferred.

Any suggestions?

What it says on the tin. Carrhae was a...um, unprofitable engagement for Crassus and Rome. Why was it as bad as it was? Was it a failure of the generals and their terrain choices or did the Romans have a legitimate Achilles heel when it came to the Parthians and their tactics?

How did the Romans react to this defeat, in terms of their military structure? Was it seen as a setback that didn't really merit any organizational changes?

I came across a question on r/movies about how the film Akira captures the mindset of post bombing Japan and was curious what other conclusions can be drawn from popular Japanese media. From my limited exposure to Japanese media, a strong military culture is often prevalent, both for good and ill. Would it be presumptuous to tie this example to the massacre in Nanking?

I'm pretty curious about the disposition of mongol foot soldiers, or how their cavalry would behave when dismounted.

I was thinking today that considering how obsessed the Ancient Greeks were with exploring geometry ideas, it's surprising they didn't figure out Heliocentrism. Eratosthenes figured out a reasonable estimate of the size of the Earth, so clearly they were thinking a lot about Earth/Sun systems. According to Wikipedia, a lost work by Aristarchus may have suggested Heliocentrism, but why didn't this gain more traction? It pretty much explained everything about the motion of the planets, as Copernicus eventually realized. It seems like the Greeks had all the pieces in place, or was their a key piece of knowledge they didn't have that I'm not realizing?

"Race" might not be the correct word here, but I'm not sure that ethnicity is the right word either, and I can't use nationality because Normandy is not, nor has it ever been a nation.

I may just be ignorant in assuming that people no longer identify themselves as Norman, but I have never heard anyone call themselves as such. It seems that people from mainland Normandy are French, and Anglo-Normans identify as British. It also seems that the Norman language has all but died out, and with it I would imagine much of the remaining culture.

Is this solely to blame on the hundred years war? Is it that people did not want to consider themselves Norman because of taboo? Or does it simply boil down to the fact that a current day "Norman" wouldn't have a country to call home?

Is there an official documents or documented quotes from specific people?