How interconnected were Arabs and Indians before the Islamicate period? Was there substantial cross pollination of knowledge, and was multilingualism in Arabian and Indic languages likely? How did their relationship change from the seventh century on?

Is there any evidence of an Indian influence on the structuring of the Arabic intellectual (e.g. grammatical) traditions?

And what Soviet leader(s) was in charge of this?

The F-2, F-3, F-4, F-5, F-6, F-8, F-9, F-11, F-80, F-82, F-84(both Thunderjet and Thunderstreak), F-86, F-100, F-101, F-102, F-104, F-105, F-106. Every single one of those was developed and introduced between 1945 and 1960.

I understand that technology was advancing quickly as designers began working with jets, but even so there are so many planes in that list that it becomes ridiculous. Even taking into account generations and different missions there are so damn many planes developed in 15 years. Considering the enemy in mind was the Soviets, whose primary strength was numerical superiority, wouldn't it have made more sense to pick a smaller list of aircraft and produce them out the ass, even if just to simplify the logistics train?

I came across this when reading the Taktika of Leo VI. The skoulkatores were a group of soldiers assigned in the Byzantine army to scout or spy on the enemy, usually under the cover of darkness or by hiding under foliage.

I felt that this was too much of a coincidence to pass up, since "skulking" means to to sneak around, but especially "in the shadows". The words are too similar to be false cognates. I looked up a few dictionaries and found that most of them attribute the etymology of the word to 12th Century Scandinavia, and I was thinking...hmm... did the Varangians bring it back with them?

Nonetheless, it seems to me that the dictionaries are wrong. I'm not sure if skoulka derives from Greek or Latin, but I've never heard it used before. Would anyone care to comment on this theory?

Certainly there was plenty of violence and repression in British colonies during and before WWII, but it seems that afterwards, UK leadership was much less committed to continuing the struggle. If that's correct, why?

And why were the French so determined to maintain their colonies?

My Theatre group is making Female transport by Steve Gooch. I'm a bit stuck on what my characters clothes should look like. The play takes place on a female prison ship during the early 1800 and my character is a Ship's boy and I really have a hard time finding information on what people with that occupation wore. Any comment will be appreciated. I Asked /askreddit and they sent me here.

I'm studying Germany post WW1 at the moment, and I'm reading that chancellor Bruning used article 48 to enforce the economic policies that the Reichstag rejected. What I don't understand is why the president helped him by using article 48, why didn't he just say no? Or am i misunderstanding article 48 because as i understand it's used by the PRESIDENT but in this case its aiding the chancellor. Was bruning close with Hindenburg, therefore he helped him? I'm talking about around 1930.

I'm reading Edgar Snow's Red Star Over China at the moment and he mentions that traditionally everyone was considered to have gotten one year older on the day after Chinese New Year rather than on the anniversary of their birth. However I know from experience that in modern China people celebrate the anniversary of their birth as their birthday. I was wondering if someone could shine some light on whether or not Snow's claim is accurate and if so how birthday celebrations have developed in China over time?

So, I was reading a bit on the Iroquois tribes, and I found a reference to the Great Peacemaker talking to Hiawatha about cannibalism. He was apparently against it, while Hiawatha who had been living among the Mohawks was originally for it until the Great Peacemaker talked to him. So, I understand the Algonquins were very firmly against cannibalism with stuff like the Wendigo, but did the Iroquois share that view with their neighbors? Was it something only practiced by the Mohawk, or did the other tribes also practice it? And did they all find cannibalism abhorrent after the Great Peacemaker united them?

So while I was doing some exercises I was wondering if ancient warriors did push-ups just like I was doing and if so how long have humans performed this movement. It seems to me like it is a fairly simple exercise and has probably been around for quite some time but I feel there is also the chance that it is a fairly modern thing. I am also vaguely curious about other similar exercises like sit-ups or pullups or just weight lifting in general and how physical exercise as progressed through the years.

There was the TIL post about the large amount of shipwrecks in the world's oceans. However would there not be a greater concentration of shipwrecks in the Mediterranean relative to it's size? and why do people not salvage these? Sorry if this is the wrong subreddit.

When looking at ancient armor, for example the Greek helmets, wouldn't it have burned to wear this in an environment that was both sunny and extraordinarily hot in the summer? The suits of armor in the medieval ages seems like it would have been ridiculously hot as well, and would make it difficult to perform in combat with that amount of heat stress.

Was the armor padded on the inside and if so, was heat stroke fairly common in battle? Even today heat stroke is a legitimate concern with our troops in the Middle East, I'm just curious how militaries in centuries past dealt with this issue, and why they weren't burned by their metal armor in the sun.

What is the accepted school of thought on the development of German doctrine in the inter-war years and its employment in the Early German campaigns of WW2?

Edit: Blitzkrieg, should have checked spelling in the title before posting.

George Washington and Benjamin Franklin were freemasons, which makes sense because they were an elite group. The freemasons were made up of mostly elite members of society, such as politicians, judges, businessmen, etc. How come the Federalist Party's successor, the Whig Party, adopted anti-masonic sentiments? And why did the Democratic Party in the 19th century support freemasonry? Didn't the Democrats oppose elitism and advocate for the rights of the common man (Jacksonians)? Any insight on how freemasonry/anti-masonic party came to align with political parties would be much appreciated.