All things admitted, I know nothing about history and the study of it. So, while I understand there is a just criticism about certain theories of what composes a civilized nation -mainly due to certain centrism on regions, because the term uncivilized is easily used to descredit someone and, therefore, justify actions against them- but I don't get what other conceptions of civilization there might be. Of course, this is a rather subjective question (and once again, I know NOTHING about the topic) but I'd like to learn a bit more about this term.

How to you read and take notes? I'm asking if there are any particular methods or tips that you use while reading for research/understanding?

I'm currently reading Walter Laqueur's A History Of Zionism, and I'm writing short 1-2 sentence summaries of major sections, and including some quotes, and writing down questions that I have. In the end it will look like an outline of the book.

Do you do anything similar?

I know some christians that are convinced that we have the exact pieces of cross that Christ died on, being kept preciously somewhere in the Vatican with other items that may of belonged to the Christ himself. I am a bit skeptic since I didn't find any reliable sources on this question. Could that be possible? Thank you for your help!

Edit: added a "be".

The Middle East has not been peaceful since the end of WWI. I'm not saying the Middle East would be nirvana but it seems plausible the Middle East doesn't have to be this destabilized and it seems plausible the colonial legacy of the European powers is partly to blame. Could they for see this at the time? What constraints did they have that modern contemporaries need keep in mind.

Because of the song?

Do they bring jobs and tourism and money? Do they help bring technology and educated individuals?

I've just read Donald Kagan's narrative on the Peloponnesian war, fought between Athens and Sparta. Near the war's end Athens treasury is empty and the Persians enter the war, providing funds to the Spartans which are used for high wages to their sailors, deliberately to induce desertions from the Athenians.

A large theme of this history is the perseverance of the Athenian democracy, which at this late stage of the war became vulnerable to internal oligarchic plots. The oligarchs used violent tactics to depose the democracy, but did this when the fleet was away.

Were the deserters the same men who provided such a bulwark of support to the democracy when at home? If so, how could they allow themselves to work for the Spartan oligarchs?

(it is the one point I can't figure out in an otherwise brilliantly related narrative)

edit: sorry for the "we're" in my title - typing on my phone.

I just spend a weekend in the north of France looking at the dozens of on-site war memorials, and it struck me that it's only recently that families of the fallen have had the ability/luxury to travel to the site of the battle to pay respects.

What (if any) examples are there of pre-20th-century on-site memorials to the fallen?

Ignore this post it was just me making an idiot of myself and in no way contributed positively to this sub.

How loyal were the common folk to their leaders (let's start with around 800-1300 for the time period... England and Europe for the region)? Was the death of their king (especially by treachery) a rallying cry (like it is in A Song of Ice and Fire/ Game of Thrones-- which I know is just a story)? Did the people just go about their business as a new king took place? Are there any examples where the people rallied for a leader?

Speaking of A Song of Ice and Fire, GRRM goes into a lot of detail with regard to its form of feudalism (a few loyal to someone responsible for regional lands, who are responsible to someone higher up... Going up to the king)... Do we have any resources that go into this depth for Europe?

I'm fine with branching out on both time and place, but figured I'd give a general time period (And I know 1100 may be vastly different from 850).

Thanks,

Does every FC have legitimate French ancestry? Did the early settlers actually come from France? Also, if this is true, is there a way to find out where in France they came from based on which Canadian province they immigrated to?

Seems like it would have helped them a lot in their constant battles against the mounted nomads of the north.

I understand that humans have been adopting for a while now, but when is the earliest sign of it? And also how did it differ from todays standards of adoption?

Thanks

This thought hit me when I was reading scientific studies made on the positive benefits with meditation and it hit me -- how come meditation was only practiced in the east and never spread to the west even though everyone can feel it's positive health effects quickly by starting to practice it. And why India of all places? Another strange thing is that the abrahamitic religions never mention this practice, which is strange for a religion proclaiming to be the only true religion. I've read about the gnosticism and it has some elements resembling to meditation but it's really more like an prayer and it came a few centuries later than Christianity.

Doesn't it seem odd that the only civilization that discovered meditation was India? There are no texts showing that similar practices existed elsewhere in the world at that time, and even later (that i know of).

I'm reading through Rick Atkinsons army at dawn, and he details that in 1942 American planners wanted to land in a Western Europe immediately and drive straight to Berlin, while the Brits wanted to and ultimately convinced the Americans to invade North Africa and eventually Italy first.

He explains it away as a combination of arrogance and a "Sherman's march to the sea" battle philosophy, but is there any more to it than that, or were there also other factors at play?

And it seems like throughout the early years of the war the British were able to strong arm American high command more often than not, why was this the case?