What do we know about peoples in Europe before the Indo-European migrations? Were the Minoans IE?

Repost from /r/askhistory since I wasn't getting a lot of response there and there seems to be more traffic here

I've been closely following the story coming out of Gaza in the past couple of days, and I was curious about the historical context of this conflict because, frankly, I'm nearly completely ignorant on this subject. As I've searched through the internet trying to find either texts or videos, all I can seem to find are one-sided accounts either Israel's or Palestine's side of the story and the sources are obviously biased. Does anyone know of some good documentaries, books, or websites that can help shed some light on this issue for me? Anything that gives a historical account of the region or conflict over the past several decades would be great. Or does anyone have a link to a previous thread where this same question was asked? Thanks!

A 6'2" soldier would have a greater advantage over a 5'7" soldier. Increased mass equals more muscle, more reach, heavier weapons, and heavier armor. So would a very large person be equipped differently? Such as a long sword and no shield to compliment his arm reach? How would a short person be equipped? I imagine they would strive to be lightly armored and compliment speed and agility.

He just seems to be an odd guy. From what I've read, he was in the SS since very early on and was the head of the Einsatzgruppen. He oversaw the deaths of over 50,000 Jews. But apparently he also had a conscience and hated what Hitler was doing, and tried to assassinate him?

He just seems like a walking contradiction. Could someone explain his motivations and rationale?

With the recent MH17 incident and all the TIL's about Korean Air 007 (1983), Iranian Air 655 (1988), etc., what has the public's reaction to these incidents been?

Thanks! First time posting here, so hopefully I formatted everything correctly :)

Hello, /r/askhistorians!

I have been looking for information about Americans joining the Mexican Revolution under Pancho Villa or other revolutionaries. I have read on many websites that a man named Tracey Custer Richardson commanded a squadron completely made up of gringos, but never with sources or even a name for the group he was in charge of.

Does anyone with a knowledge of the Mexican Revolution know anything about my gringo compatriots joining up with Mexican leaders? What would their reasoning be? Money? Glory? Just believing in the cause? And what would their experiences be like when they got to Mexico? Any information about these participants would be very cool.

Thank you!

As a general/common practice, the way we keep things in safety deposit boxes today.

Besides pirates I mean (Did pirates even do that?).

Given their closeness to Italy it seemed that there would be some interaction (especially with Venice since they traded).

With the Umayyads conquering North Africa and expansion into Iberia, what was the relationship status between the two Empires?

And if so, what did cities do to mitigate this? Was there any kind of traffic control infrastructure? Did the concept of directional lanes exist? Were there traffic violations, and citations?

Edit: I should have been more clear about time period: I'm mostly curious about late 1800's/turn of the century.

A conflict came up in the schedule, and we had to push the time back one hour - but we're still on track otherwise! The original post will be updated when the AMA goes 'live.'

Dr. Jensen is one of the leading historians of political violence in this era and spent about 10 years composing his latest work. He has published several articles (and one book) in public security/terrorism in Italy during the 19th century, as well as several manuals for instruction of history in the modern world. Some of the issues he is prepared to discuss are:

1. Diplomatic, police, and wider socio-economic and political efforts to fight, repress, and prevent anarchist terrorism, 1878-1930s
2. Anarchist terrorism: its causes and history, 1878-1930s
3. The question whether the present Al-Qaeda/Islamic extremist associated terrorism of today is closely comparable to 19th century anarchist terrorism (as has often been alleged).

These obviously don't limit the extent of the AMA, so feel free to ask away!

How were names chosen? What kind of meaning did they hold, and what kind of honorifics or titles existed? What were some common names?

Speaking as a british black person, Abraham Lincoln is definitely one of my favourite US presidents. It's not just simply for me: "Well he freed the slaves". I feel this way due to his incredible drive, him being ahead of his time and most of all that he was a genius. I say this as he was smart enough to control his strong will to change what he saw as injustice by not acting out of emotion but by looking to strive for the best possible outcome even if it does not seem like enough. I felt he recognised what was possible in his lifetime and strived towards that, rather than doing a John Brown.

I'll try and be concise but it's hard for me, I'm not a good writer. I've read a lot of American History for fun and out of interest on the internet and on a few books. What people often say is: "He was a racist, he said blacks are unequal" and usual talk about the quotes that are described as racist. And the people that fight back simply say "He was a man of his time."

I argue against labelling him racist a different way, I think it needs to be remembered how good the man was at playing politics and remember his time. Part of me thinks you need to understand that you cannot know what he said to just appease people and what he actually believed. Some were worried he would "hand over the country to negro rule". To actually come out and say "blacks and whites are equal" was extremely radical and would get him nowhere, he had to be the fox about it. People saw egalitarians as straight up madmen who would ruin the country. And people still feel like that today, they are just secretive about it and post mainly on the internet.

I think he had to say those things because even though he said them people would still say things such as "Lincoln the white nigger", "Lincoln likely beds negro women" "Lincoln will make white men slaves". And a lot of white people saw what he was doing as "oppressing white people". I know it sounds ridiculous to us. Is it not reasonable to accept that Lincoln would have to play some major southern strategy? My main point is what things he claimed can we really be certain he felt. The man did everything possible he could for black folks without being seen as a madman like others such as Thaddeus Stevens.

Here's some info on how even fellow politicians reacted to people pro-civil rights long ago: Decades after James K. Vardaman referred to Theodore Roosevelt as "little, mean, coon-flavored miscegenationist", and the man was not even that outspoken for black civil rights and this was decades after the time of Lincoln (this gave an idea of how uneasy people were about advancing negro rights).

Tillman in reference to Booker T being invited to the white house be Roosevelt "The action of President Roosevelt in entertaining that nigger will necessitate our killing a thousand niggers in the South before they will learn their place again", same time period.

And at present day, let me explain something: Do you really think there are people alive that are not doubtlessly far more racist than Lincoln ever was.

I was watching a video on Youtube of Gorillas fighting in a zoo, it had nothing to do with black people. The top comments at +65 and +119 were " Typical black domestic violence" and "Niggers gonna nig". Let that sink in, casual hardcore racism like that which is totally dehumanising is widespread on the net where people say what they really feel. There's a difference between people who even today, just straight up hate all blacks, don't want to give them a chance or access to do well from their own work and are pro eugenics or segregation e.t.c and people like Lincoln or Roosevelt who judged people more by merit.

There is no evidence of Lincoln being anywhere near that racist and hateful. I think the man had the heart of a lion and not just for the issues of black folk, he showed a lot of compassion and way more than he had to and did as much as he could, using his immense intelligence to do so.

I give this info not to try convince anyone, just to let you know what I believe and why I believe it. If I'm very ignorant, it might help to know the true extent of my ignorance.

What I admit is that I am an amateur and not a proper historian.

What I would like is if you wise and true Historians could answer this question so that I maybe more knowledgable, how I feel is that if I'm wrong about this, I'd rather find out sooner than later.

I'm very thankful if you read all , most or enough of that to understand what I'm saying. I'd really appreciate responses to this.

I'm not a good writer and apologise for any poor composition or some grammatical mistakes and of course the length of my post.

Edit: I've come to realise after being given advice that at the very least my submission is very poor quality compared to the other submissions in this sub. I apologise for the quality of my post and how bad my title is. I know that this sub is generally well regarded and subscribers and mods pride that it has good content. I really didn't mean to just create more rubbish for the mods to clean up. I fully understand if my post is deleted. I should have lurked more.

Hi!

I was thinking about this today. Why did the Nordic countries turn out Social democratic countries and liberal?

Is there something particular in their history that would explain this?