Please note that I mean no offence in asking this question.

I am Mediterranean by birth (one of the islands) and in primary school we were taught of our ancestry. Romans, Byzantines etc. Our language is Semitic which means it is derived from Arabic/the middle east. It was my understanding that those who lived near the Mediterranean (from Gibraltar to the East) could be considered Semitic.

When I moved to the UK for my secondary education, during history lessons we discussed semitism (specifically anti-semitism) and I was confused to learn that it meant specifically anti-Jewish/Judaism. Before that I thought anti-semitism meant hateful acts against those who lived in the Mediterranean/descended from Semitic culture/spoke semitic languages like mine. Please note I am fully aware now what anti-semitism is defined as.

What hasn't been cleared up for me is when this term became specific to one culture/ethnicity. Google suggests that Semites is an archaic term now to refer to multiple ethnicities and I just wanted to know what changed or what the history is behind this.

Thank you in advance for your explanations. It would be great to find out.

The movie ‘Siege of Jadotville’ shows that only a few modern assault rifles (FN FALS) were allocated. Then they had a Bren gun, a Vickers gun, and many bolt action WWII rifles.

Was this accurate? If so, why were they armed so poorly? Even Ireland was using better arms by this point. It’s not like the UN was pretending that they didn’t see any combat and wouldn’t, because they did provide modern rifles to their troops. So why would these forces have such antiquated technology?

We hear today about how hard life in Appalachia is. The poorest cities in America can be found there, scattered amongst West Virginia and Kentucky. But in the 50s, America’s economy was booming & coal was thriving. What was life like then? Were these towns rich? A lot of these towns have (now decrepit) theaters & stadiums. Was there a lot to do there? Never hear about the past, only the present.

To me, their whole name, to me at least, makes no sense whatsoever. All it does is create a connection where there really is none.

Just by the definition of Empire, it falls rather flat. It was more of a loose union of principalities and kingdoms. And the descriptor "roman" makes even less sense, considering almost every single emperor was of germanic descent! Not only that but more than half of the HRE was outside of the original Roman Empire's borders. The HRE had almost no similarities with Rome's system of gouvernment or culture.

That's just my 2 cents, I would love to hear what a professional has to say on the matter.

I'm writing a story following a character that's part of a culture that really loosely based on the Viking era. I was working on a scene where he's bringing his ship into port and I realized I don't really know what that would involve. I've done a bit of research and can't too too much about this specific thing.

I'm wondering if anyone could give me even a brief idea of what that process would look like? Would they row their way in, for instance? Would they use the sail? That sort of stuff.

Watching footage and dramatizations about the Pacific campaign of World War 2, you often see light skinned soldiers walking about shirtless and in direct exposure to the sun. I can assume that many soldiers developed a natural tan to help combat the sun. However, this got me to think about how I would fair in that environment. I am prone to dangerous sun burns that literally leave me unable to move for days.

How would a soldier with a fair completion combat the constant abuse from the sun, especially while away from camp? How would a soldier with an extreme burn be treated and/or handled?

(To be clear, I mean to focus on why did the Soviets leave, not why did they occupy the base in the first place, although it's possible the context of the occupation might matter.)

I know, at least in theory, what the Northwest Passage is, but I don't know any of the explorers mentioned in the lyrics, and I'm having trouble figuring out who they all are. To start with:

Ah, for just one time I would take the Northwest Passage

To find the hand of Franklin reaching for the Beaufort Sea

Who is Franklin? Did he find a sea route that involved passing through the Beaufort Sea (or at least look for one)?

Later on the song says:

Three centuries thereafter, I take passage overland

In the footsteps of brave Kelsey, where his Sea of Flowers began

Watching cities rise before me, then behind me sink again

This tardiest explorer, driving hard across the plain

Who is Kelsey? What was the overland route being described here, and was it really used for three centuries? Is "his Sea of Flowers" referencing something specific? Also, in terms of how long Europeans were crossing North America, it seems hard for him to be "this tardiest explorer" and still have discovered something that was in use for three centuries. Was he later in history than the other explorers mentioned, or is he referred to as tardy because overland travel is slower?

There are more explorers mentioned in another verse:

And through the night, behind the wheel, the mileage clicking west

I think upon Mackenzie, David Thompson and the rest

Who cracked the mountain ramparts and did show a path for me

To race the roaring Fraser to the sea

It's pretty easy to look up David Thompson, since the lyrics nicely included his whole name, but I'm not sure who Mackenzie and Fraser are. The lyrics seem to imply that they (or at least Fraser) discovered an overland route that was faster than Kelsey's. Did these guys make important discoveries, or are they just some of many explorers, who in this case happened to have names that suited the lyrics?

I want to learn more about the history surrounding this topic but I know nothing about 99% of world history and a lot of the terminology and references make little to no sense to me, so I was wondering where I could learn about this issue in an unbiased beginner friendly way, if any.

Thank you!!

My knowledge of that area is sorely lacking. But if I remember right it was called Bohemia for the longest time. Why and where did Czechia come from? Is it because Bohemia was their Germanic name and they tried to distance themselves from the days of the Holy Roman Empire?

Hello everyone,

These people basically had one of the best rivers in this region, with Volga and Dnipro rivers, in their homeland. Usually, migration tends to happen towards favorable climates. But why did the Indo-Iranians and Tocharian peoples migrate towards deserted Central Asia and cold Siberia, than founding agricultural centers around these river valleys?

Is the book “A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century” a good book to know about life during the 14th century? I heard contradicting records on its historic value.

Thank you!

I am looking through Old Bailey Online court records for a university project and looking at robberies. In many accounts Watchmen or Constables are called to help in detaining robbers and other criminals. But given this was before the advent of the Metropolitan Police or other forces of that nature how did this work? Were these people volunteers from the communities, the employees of local magistrates, etc? For further clarification every case I have looked at is in or around London between 1770-1780.

Whithout entering in the nukes debate, Japan in 1945 had lost his fleet and being firebombed daily. They still wanted to fight the war, they were prepared to meet an American invasion of the homeland. So why being so preocupaid by a Soviet invasion of his colonies, like Manchuria?

So I just watched HBOs “exterminate all the brutes” by Raoul Peck. It was an emotionally riveting documentary about genocide, colonialism and slavery particularly the ones perpetrated by American and European nations, although Rwanda is talked about.

While the four part series jumps around from narrative to narrative about different events, the main thesis I would say, as he repeats in the last episode, is that the crusades sparked an ideology of white supremacy and the need to destroy / subjugate the “barbaric” races. And that this also sparked the idea of race / the European obsession with race.

From my understanding this sort of ideology was very present in the Roman Empire, they viewed the Gauls and Germans as races and gave them qualities. Very similar to the sort of civilized vs barbarian ideas that Peck talks about.

My question is, how historically accurate is this statement about the crusades? It seems this ideology in Europe was already present and how much did the crusades really impact the idea of race amongst Europeans. Additionally were these concepts not present in other cultures?

Did cultures like the Babylonians not have more rural civilizations that they considered the people to be barbaric and naturally inferior?

I am writing about the justifications behind the clauses of the Treaty of Nanjing (1842) and I am struggling to find sources about why the British needed Hong Kong and how it was used in this period.

I am trying to prove that by ceding Hong Kong to the British Empire, the Qing Chinese Empire had a military power stationed very closely to their mainland which allowed the British to strong arm economic policies in order to be able to trade more efficiently. However, if I have gotten this wrong please tell me.

If you know of any sources that could help me please let me know!

Some friends and I were recently discussing a new board game about the Roman Empire. One aspect of this game includes players using "servant" pawns that represent slaves to get work done. The game provides the following blurb:

Hadrian’s Wall is a historical game based in an era where slavery was present. The purple ‘servant’ worker in the game represents this aspect. During this time period, it was estimated that 30% of the Roman Empire were slaves. Obviously, we in no way condone these practices, but not including this group within the game would have been whitewashing their role from history

My initial reaction was that this was a clumsy attempt to be virtuous - that simply saying "it'd be disrespectful to pretend that slavery wasn't how shit got done in Roman times" doesn't absolve you when making a game where utilizing slaves helps you accomplish your goals.

I also think it's important to not get bogged down in the minutia of this specific game, because a lot of board games have historical themes. Some use slaves but try to whitewash it by calling them something like "colonists." Some reskin that element and remove it. Some games simply just change their entire theme to avoid the topic. Rarely are these games about slavery, but they acknowledge and represent slavery.

The more we discussed it, I started to feel like "well, what would be the most sensitive way to discuss this? How can we address the reality of slavery productively?" The answer could very simply be "don't make it a game."

I'm curious to know the thoughts of actual historians, who have likely turned similar questions over in their heads.

We were studying this in history and I’ve been thinking a lot about it lately. Was it this specific event that was the real reason America dropped the atomic bombs? To fulfil proper revenge? Sorry I don’t know an awful lot about this but I’m really curious about the interpretation from a historian’s perspective.