I know that Aramaic was written two scripts; its original alphabet (which is today's Hebrew script) and the Syriac script. What script would Jews have used to write it in the 1st century? Were both scripts in use in different parts of the Middle East?

I know he died shortly after WW2 and the publication of Animal Farm and 1984, but the Cold War was already forming and there must have been warning signs for him. Did he react in any way to that phenomenon?

EDIT: the question can be extended to include any pre-Stalin socialist intellectual that later fought Communism more than they fought Capitalism. I find that trajectory really interesting.

I recently listened to the audiobook version of this and found it an interesting and engaging read - however some reviewers have noted a pro-Israel bias in the work, and without greater knowledge of the period I have no real idea if this is true. What do we think, and if it is biased to Israel, any recommendations for a different work to show the other side?

Could the Nationalists have won without their help? or were they key?

In either tv, radio, magazine serials, or other media?

In movies towns in modern conflicts are often shown as battlegrounds basically devoid of civilians, is this view accurate? Where do the civilians go then?

I got thinking about this the other day. If a Jewish German man fought for Germany during the First world war how might he be treated in Nazi Germany? Would he simply be treated the same as other Jews or if the man could prove that he fought years previously, would he be given some kind of special treatment? Did the Nazi's have any particular view on a Jewish veteran of the First world war?

Int he film 'Belle' the main protagonists are vehemently against the slave trade and refer to it as being inhumane whilst also stating that it is a source of significant portion of the countries revenue. This indicates that the trade was once, at least, more socially acceptable than during the time period protrayed.

Is it true that the slave trade was more socially acceptable when it was established and if so what were the social or cultural changes that eventually led to it becoming contraversial and eventually outlawed?

Was it a gradual change or did it happen rapidly - was religion involved and if so what particular to English society made it happen sooner there than other European powers?

Alright, this will be hard to articulate but I will do my best. I was once told (I can't remember where) that Persia invaded Greece for a couple of reasons, the first and foremost being Athen's support of the Ionian Revolt but also because years before, Athens had been effectively occupied by Spartans after it's removal of the king and signed themselves over to Persia. Basically, the Spartans helped the Athenians with the expulsion and then decided to stick around in the city. So the Athenians then enlisted the aid of Persia to expel the Spartans. This led them into an agreement where the Athenians unknowingly brought themselves into the Persian fold. Of course the Athenians didn't acknowledge that, thus leading to the second catalyst. Is any of this true, or am I completely backwards? If you would be so kind as to help clear up any misconceptions you see, it would be greatly appreciated. I have hardly any knowledge about Ancient Greece and is like to improve it.

People say that that invasion was more important than the atomic bombs in causing Japan to surrender. But why is that?

By 1945, wasn't shipping to/from japan basically crippled by submarines (according to wikipedia, down to about 1/4 of 1941 numbers)? So it seems like losing Manchuria/the rest of China wouldn't really reduce the amount of goods flowing to Japan by that much. Besides, if a lot of supplies were flowing from Manchuria, wouldn't it be the target of allied bombers anyways which would wreck the major ports?

Maybe Japan still wanted to hold onto an empire and the fall of Manchuria ruined those dreams? But it seems like at this point it was mainly trying to fight off an invasion and not that interested in keeping an empire any more, and in any case, it already more or less lost its pacific territories, and surely could not expect to keep China for that much longer, despite the failings of Chaing Kai Shek and whatnot.

Wikipedia says "Japan realized the Soviets were willing and able to take the cost of invasion of its Home Islands, after their rapid conquest of Manchuria and southern Sakhalin". But the Soviets didn't really do any major amphibious landings before right? So there's a good chance they'd fail miserably. And for all they knew Stalin didn't care about the Home Islands and just wanted Manchuria. And the costs weren't that high for the Soviets, they lost about 30-40K soldiers in the invasion, which seems nothing compared to the invading force of 1.6 million.

But in any case Japan would face millions of troops even without the soviets there, since apparently Allied causality estimates ran from half to four million.

So Japan must have assumed that either the non-Soviet allies were weak fighters, or they would run out of willpower after suffering lots of causalities. I think they did think the former at the beginning, but by now they would be thoroughly disabused of the notion. As for the latter, that seems like a bit of a desperate hope and if they thought that, then wouldn't they also decide that the soviets would probably fail to launch an amphibious invasion.

So basically it seems that the Soviet invasion of Manchuria would have little effect on Japanese morale, supplies, or thoughts of defending the Home Islands so there's no particular reason this would cause them to surrender. But apparently that isn't the case.

And yes the atomic bombs were kind of just a more powerful bomb and a few hundred bombers could have the same effect, but then I'm confused at why they're surrendering at all. And a few hundred atomic bombs (for all they knew, the US had that many) would surely matter.

Here and there in pre-modern European history, you hear reports about male sexual assault more often than you do modern. For example, the Scandinavian Vikings would use it against their enemies as a form of humiliation, and in Ancient Rome, it was abhorred, as was female and child rape of Roman citizens.

But as you travel towards, and during the modern era, the general discourse of it seems to... drop off. Why? Did the sexual assault disappear? Or was it suppressed through some means and not discussed?

I understand that Spain stayed completely out of WWII. However, Franco was a fascist dictator ruling in Europe during the cold war, which put him squarely in America's sphere of influence. Was his strong opposition to communism the source of America's indifference to his anti-democratic policies? Still an ally, even if he is authoritarian? As a side note, what caused King Juan Carlos to immediately begin the process of making Spain a democracy after Franco died?

And did Japan know it? Were there any other countries that had atomic bombs ready? Also how close were they to be used.on germany?

I finished Rick Atkinson's latest book, The Guns At Last Light, and a few parts in the book really stuck out to me. He said Eisenhower had only enough supplies to outfit 10 divisions to cross into Germany. He also said the American army was usually short of essential winter clothes and such. I also remember a part where he stated Third Army only had enough fuel for 3 more days of fighting. Sorry if anything above was inaccurate, but I am just writing down what I remember.

What I'm trying to say that the Allies had times of resource shortage. So how accurate is the idea that the Allies were up to their gills in resources and materiel?

(I'm not asking for comparisons between the Axis and the Allies, but rather, a comparison between the Allies in the minds of most people to how they actually were.)

Hello everyone! I am working on a research paper for witchcraft in Early Modern Europe. I want to discuss the issue of sexuality, femininity and masculinity as they appear in witchcraft trials. I intend to find roots and causes of sexual tension, as well as to better understand the role of sexuality in gender relations in the early modern period in Europe. I need a little help finding sources. (it is a small paper, only 20 pages) I already have for primary sources the malleus Malificurum, the trial of Suzanne gaudry, Papal Bull of 1484, the trial of Tempel Anneke as well as several visual sources of Penis Trees. For secondary sources I will be using Oedipus and the Devil by Lyndal Roper, The Witch in History by Diane Purkiss, Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe by Wiesner by as well Jeffery cohens work on monster theory. (I think his work would pertain to my treatment of witches as monster in culture). I am a grad student who focuses mainly and America religious history, but this course is for my minor so I am a little lost as far as good sources and historiography are concerned. Any early modern gender, sexuality, cultural or religious historians (or anyone with help really) out there with any advice? Anything would be much appreciated!

I feel like its a fair question, I'm excited for some answers

Edit: This thread has been super fun to read, thanks guys/gals

I've encountered a few people who claimed that the actual figure was far lower, closer to one or two million. Is there any truth in this? Is there any concrete proof of the 6 million figure?

I understand the concept of how we got last names. What confuses me is this. There are different meanings for last names (x's son, from this place, of this profession, so on) but how did, let's say, John de Brereton become "John from Brereton" instead of "John the smith" or "John son of Will"?

I read somewhere that most parts of the Inca Empire did not fish frequently and many considered it a delicacy. Is this true? If not, where did they fish (Amazon?) and what species?