I asked a similar question last year but didn't get any answers. It seems from just Wikipedia, that a lot of Bronze Age cultures had palace economies, which seem to me to require some pretty extensive bureaucracy and control of the population. Yet, Palace economies disappear after the Bronze Age, right? And the the empires that replace them don't seem to regulate production and distribution of stuff anywhere near as heavily. So how exactly did the Bronze Age states manage this where later states didn't?

I know the gist of his career, i.e. he founded and headed the Free Officers movement, established a network, gained sympathisers and then took advantage of King Idris' trip abroad to launch a coup and gain power.

This makes me ask a few questions. He was 27 at the time of the coup, only a captain. Why did the rest of the armed forces who weren't involved with the Free Officers' movement just let him basically become the head of state and commander-in-chief of the armed forces? Surely there must have been a fair amount of senior officers much higher in rank and not involved with the movement who would have been irked at this upstart becoming practically a general in one day.

Were there no monarchy loyalists in the Libyan army who would have opposed the coup?

And the senior military officers who approved of monarchy being overthrown, but were now being left in the shade by Gaddafi and his crew, what were they doing? If I'm a power-hungry, opportunistic general in the Libyan Army in 1969 what's stopping me from raising a brigade, removing Gaddafi and installing myself as dictator?

I'm aware the Nazis claimed racial supremacy along with nations like the Scandinavians and Nordics, English and French, basically the ones they wanted to fight with to kill all the "impure Slavs." This is of course racial propaganda, a clever ruse used to unite genetically and historically similar peoples and make them go so far as to murder people not part of their "master race."

I'm curious how they thought of people like Norwegians and Finns, Swedes and Danes, Belgians and Dutch, Scots and Irish, English and Welsh. I'm aware they liked Romanians and Greeks racially, same with Italians, but that Russians and Ukrainais were "impure Slavs." I'm also told the Indians who were anti British had their own Pro-Nazi military of a couple hundred Indian men, and this was arranged by Bose with Hitler. In also aware that all Slavs were seen as racially impure slaves to the Übermensch Germanics.

I remember in two films, Nazis mention countries like Ireland and GB. In Inglorious Basterds the German SS officer (Diane Kruger/Fassbender bar scene) orders Scottish whiskey, claim in it's the best. In Das Boot the Germans have a famous scene singing It's a long way to Tipperary, and all the crew is pleased and joyous, except for the one condescending young officer, who is angered by the music of the "enemy" merely for reasons that aren't associated with race theory. To this, I remember reading about Dutch, Norwegian, French and Italian, even Spanish, and somehow about 30 English men who fought for Nazi ideology, or in their militaries. Obviously Hitler liked the Finns until late war when they fought against The USSR and Germany. An Estonian friend of mine's grandfather fought against The USSR with Germany, much as Hungarians and Latvians did.

I've also been told the Nazis urged British and French forces to fight the "evil communist Bolshevik Slavs," and that Nazi Germany was feeding them all the Aryan propaganda bullcrap, even informing the English that they could still switch sides and fight with Germany mid-war.

So in short this is a lot of what I know on this topic collectively. I don't mean to come off as rude by stating what I know about the situations, just to save you fellow passionate historians some typing time. Basically those are only semi-related to any concise answers I'm seeking.

A thanks in advance to all of my fellow passionate historians who will no doubt deliver a great contextual answer as always.

Would the repercussions be? Would the men lose their jobs, or ever face and kind of ramification for the lynching?

It seems like every example of fabric I've seen that is older than the mid-19th century has fairly dull colors. I assume that this is partly due to aging and fading, but how much brighter would they have been originally? I've heard a bit about bright scarlet dyes in the 13th century, but would those colors seem bright to us now, or was it simply that they were brighter than earlier dyes?

Originally, knitting was consider a male trade. So what happened?

Were the allies able to stop any from getting there?

1: As the title states, were Gladiators doomed if they lost? If not, how big was the mortality rate?

2: How hard was it to earn your freedom for a slave gladiator?

3: Could a freeman become a gladiator if he chose to? If so, would he stand a better or worse chance then the slaves?

4: Who supplied the Gladiators their equipment? Was it from the government or someplace else?

5: How common were Coliseums/how big would a town need to be to have one? If so, what types of events would be held there?

6: is "To those who are about to die, I salute you" Something that was actually said? If so, is the context as simple as it seems?

I've been wondering some of this stuff for awhile, and figured (Since I'm new to the thread) it might be a good idea to ask a bunch at once so I'm not taking up space, sorry if some of these are fairly common knowledge around here, I'm still in high school and only know a litle stuff about history.

Would non-Jewish people in the city be familiar at all with Jewish mythology and traditions?

Why didn't violence ramp up in the South to prevent this success?

Given how important history is to understand the present state of the modern world, why is history not a more important subject in school? When I was a student, it seemed like my entire education was focused on the "modern European world". We went straight from Napoleon to democracy which left me quite confused tbh. I did not understand how democracy came about, why it was so important, and what the point of all the confusing terms were. After learning more about world history after graduation I soon realized there was more to it than just the dry facts and dates which I could not relate to. I understood eventually that history was made of individuals and the actions they took. It was about the words of individuals on the written page and the biases they held. These are all very interesting for me to analyze and criticize, but none of it ever came up in school. Why is this? What is the point of public history education because I certainly didn't learn much from it...

it's part of a project i'm doing on Thomas Jefferson, but i don't get what it means by key aspects of his political platform.

Thanks!

Anyone see lights or feel an earthquake? Or something else?