Why was it Alexandria, Egypt instead of say, Limassol in Cyprus or even Tel-Aviv in the Levant?

This was prompted by the recent All Quiet on the Western Front.

I am writing my undergraduate thesis about Dracula, and while researching sources that spoke about female sexuality, I ended up reading two history books: Guy Bechtel's Les Quatre Femmes de Dieu and Jean Delumeau 's La Peur en Occident. To my surprise, the authors stated that since Ancient History, until the end of the 18th century, women were widely believed to have much stronger sex drives than men. According to the historians:

1. St. Jerome claimed that a woman's ability to have multiple orgasms had its origin in some form of supernatural power, where not even the blood of the dead would be able to fully satisfy them.
2. Michel de Montaigne, in the third book of Essays, wrote that the only truth which no philosopher would ever contest was that women are infinitely more wanton than men.
3. Jean Bodin, a contemporary of Montaigne, stated that in the dictionaries of any language, the word woman should be synonymous with 'untamed lust' and 'bestial lechery'.

If anyone knows a book/author who explains this radical historical shift, about how people saw the differences between male and female libido, please tell me here.

I've been reading a bit about the first circumnavigation of the globe, and found an interesting tidbit that Magellan brought an enslaved man with him on the journey, who spoke Malay and may have come from Sumatra, and seems to have left the voyage at Cebu after Magellan's death.

It's mentioned that assuming he came from Sumatra, his last known position was only 2500 miles from his presumed birthplace. So theoretically, he could have beaten Magellan's expedition to the circumnavigation, since he didn't have as far to go.

But that's still a long way for the 1520s.

Soo...

• what can we guess about Enrique's life after leaving the expedition based on the evidence we have? He just disappears from the record, right? Is it likely he actually voluntarily left the voyage or is it more likely he just died and nobody bothered to mention it?
• How much confidence do we have that Enrique actually came from Sumatra?
• Assuming that Enrique did leave voluntarily in Cebu, what kind of a society would he have found? What would his life be like having moved from one part of the Oceania, via Europe, to another not especially similar part?
• how likely is it that a relatively anonymous man in Cebu in the 1520s could find his way 2500 miles to Sumatra?

I've heard he may have been a Marxist sympathizer and I'm curious how he would've reached to those events.

I recall reading an essay arguing the real reason for US entry into World War One was to protect our war loans and econoimc ties to the Allies. The historian was somewhat well received in the 1930s, but later became anti-Semitic and a Holocaust denier and so was discredited. It made me wonder if any similar scandals have happened more recently.

It seems like flying supplies over to Berlin would be a pretty simple thing solution to a blockade. Did the Soviets expect the Berlin Airlift, if so then what did they plan to do about it?

I mean this in a more in-depth way than the title suggests. I’m so very curious (and a little bit jealous) so I’m hoping this post is allowed.

By my question I mean where does the knowledge you use come from? Is the well-presented and well-written information in the comments coming from people more educated than I could hope to be? Have you taken classes on the subjects you answer on? Are there specific books or sources you use that a lot of people don’t know about? Do you have a greater understanding of Google than the average person?

In essence, how does one become you? What tools and resources are good places (in your opinion) to begin finding the answers to our questions ourselves? Not that I don’t find every answer super interesting and compelling—I would just love to help answer! I’ve been lurking a while and want so dearly to be one of you commenters.

EDIT: This blew up!! I got back from the hospital and am blown away (and slightly intimidated) by the number of comments here. I'm trying to get to everyone but it may take a while. Know I am reading and loving everything you have all said. My dream book list is growing by the minute!

The Polynesians are said to be legendary voyagers, but how did their ships and navigating methods measure up to larger, more powerful civilizations or empires in the past? I read that they were able to sail in the deep sea while those supposedly mighty empires has to sail near the coastline but how did they figure out something much more populous civilizations couldn't?

Hello! I'm looking for sources on why European pagans converted so quickly in the middle ages.

I understand that Christianity provided a strong background and could provide incentives to convert - but I can't find any credible academic sources that say this.

Are there any well known articles or books written on this topic?

Homer's Illiad and Odyssey are, nowadays, one of the most important texts of the Western culture, and most people know at least something about it.

Is it because it was already a major story, very important in the ancient Greece culture, or simply survivor's bias - as if the only novel a future archelogist would find two thousand years in the future was a Harlequin book?

Okay, I understand that my question sounds dumb. I’m genuinely trying to learn more.

I understand that Native Americans have lived in the Americas for thousands of years before being essentially wiped out, but why is the term “stolen land” still around? Aren’t most countries today on “stolen” ground? If the Europeans had straight up waged war and conquered the entire country (current USA) would that be any different?

Is the trickery that took place the issue or is it simply just taking over the land?

Or is it because they completely replaced the people of the land and stripped the natives of their rights to their own land? While this seems obvious, wouldn’t this apply to most current countries?

Thank you.

Bonus points if violent struggles against the Nazis were suppressed by the Weimar Republic.

(This is adapted from a previously removed question post. Reading recommendations for any combinations of one or more of the following inquiries, or others in the same vein, would be greatly appreciated.)

I've been recently reading up a lot about the histories of various cultures and areas. In doing so, I come across various descriptions of urbanisation events, where the emergence and spread of "cities" are described, but in very broad terms.

What I'm specifically looking for is a breakdown of this process, and what it would mean for any given individual/group on a human scale. Questions I find myself asking are along the lines of:

• What instigates the establishment of a new city at all, where there wasn't one before (whether entirely anew, or branching off existing urban cultures)? Who are the human drivers of such development, and how do they go about it? (And, if possible, why?)

• What structures were built, by whom, and under what (kinds of) motivations? What were the factors that went into the construction of any given structure?

• Ditto, but for demolision; also, how did the two processes interact? What explicit, or implicit, cultural attitudes surrounded them?

• How did social organization impact the way the urbanization unfolded? (i.e. what types of structures were built, what purposes they [were perceived to] serve, who was affected by the construction/demolision of any given structure)

• Ditto, but for "economic" organization; how did these two axes of organization interact, with respect to urban development?

• What were the ancillary non-urban groups requisite for any given urban development (I'm thinking farming villages, locally roaming pastoral groups, etc)? What was the nature of their social and economic relationship with the urban settlement(s) they were affiliated with? What were the human relationships like among and between such groups?

And so many more. But I hope this gives an idea of the scale at which I am curious for answers. While I will appreciate works on generalizable trends in urbanization, addressing such questions, what I am really interested in is specific accounts of specific urbanisation events in history.

Hopefully that was somewhat clear.

Particular interests of mine include the Indian subcontinent (northern Aryan urbanization, as well as southern "indigenous" urbanization), pre-colombian Americas (including non-agricultural urbanization, as seen in the North), and the Mediterranean (mostly Italic/Hellenic expansions, but North African as well). However, any recommendations would be greatly appreciated! Books, articles, papers; anything you believe is a valuable resource for such questions, in your expert opinions.

Thanks!

Hello! I know that humans and societies of the world have always been connected, but i want to learn more about exactly how certain societies/countries influenced other societies/countries, and not just in the modern world / past 400 years like is usually taught. Are there any specific books thats main purpose is the interconnectedness of human societies / world histories? I also want to learn about this topic pertaining to the whole world if possible - not just a specific region. Thank you!

The Sepoy Rebellion was just covered in one of my college classes today. I had learned about it in high school as well, but I decided to learn more about it on my own time, and I've been wondering, was there any truth to the Sepoy rumors that the cartridges were greased with beef tallow and/or pork lard?

I've seen a huge number of posts debunking the idea that medieval people drank beer cause the water was bad. However, I can't find anything as to what the origin of this myth is. Was this just an urban legend? Was this based on an older field of scholarship? What?

Is there a reason why the terminology around these weapons shifted from ‘atomic’ in 40s and 50s media towards ‘nuclear’?