I don't know why but I'm literally obsessed with that topic. I know that no one knows for sure who he was but what is the most plausible option in your opinions? I have watched some documentaries and papers but i feel some of them are biased, some claim he was Ramses II others claim he was ahmose or Amenhotep II or even Akhenaten which i thought is kinda stretch.

Also where is the Tempest stele kept rn? And could the Santorini volcano really be the cause of the plagues?

Hi,

I’ve learned a lot of about D-Day and the Normandy landings via cultural osmosis but one thing I’ve always wondered was if the landings were considered to be successful when comparing what was considered to be acceptable casualties by the allies to the actual.

And, bonus question, if there was more actual casualties than deemed acceptable ,did this change the allies tactics in short or long term?

Thanks

Stay safe Ally

Edit - a word

I already know that some colonies of roman citizens were sent into the non romanized provincies, but how does this romanize the people of the provincies? Were there other methods to romanize the various provincies and how did them work?

As I understand the Kingdom of Norway in the period was a fairly loose arrangement, so I would expect there to be strong regional identities that existed even outside of this period of civil war, but also that such instability would give particular voice to them.

Likewise with a turnover of a King a week (not literally, but seems close...) I would expect neighboring countries and foreign observers to take a fairly dim view of the viability of a cohesive Norwegian state, so how did Norway make out, or suffer, in terms of interstate interactions?

[18 High Medieval] [8 Scandinavia] [58 National Identity]

Hello Friends, i felt like this would be the right place to ask.

I am having a competition in my "presidents we love to hate" course to see who can find and analyze the most obscure primary source from any US president. It does not have to be about anything in particular, just written by a president and not too well known! Any help would be much much appreciated, TIA!

So let's say I'm a Roman citizen during the Republic interested in international relations and or history. A fair number of polities in the Mediterranean world that is familiar to me will be much later designated as "empires" (Seleucid empire, various iterations of the Persian empire...). Would I distinguish such polities with a specific word? If yes, which one ? Or would I just use a catchall term like kingdom?

And what if I'm a loyal Byzantine in the middle ages? Then how do I call states that actually claim to be an empire, like the Carolingian empire or the Ottonian Holy Roman Empire?

I became interested in the Tuttle Publishing's Three Kingdoms Trilogy, is it a good translation or there are better options ?

Thanks in advance!

Now of course, íf Hitler as the dictator of germany said stop the killing, the killing would have (at least officially) stopped. But how important was the extermination of all jews to Hitler, especially compared to winning the war in the later years of WW2? And how involved was Hitler in everyday decisions regarding the holocaust?

I was wondering what the Founding Fathers thought of Napoleon specifically. Not the wars around him (although that is interesting too!).

I can see elements of things they would have liked and disliked. Like, he rises through popular support and acclaim and overrides the constitution and norms, but the Founding Fathers weren't enormously pro mass participation democracy anyway.

Edit: How and if their views changed over time would also be interesting.

Are there any recorded accounts of a parish priest or messenger in England bringing the news? What was the common peoples response to it?

How did the news spread across Europe?

We typically think of slaves as being responsible for physically constructing ancient buildings, and most slaves couldn’t read. But when it came time to write on them, how much literacy was required?

No matter the culture or its writing, it takes training to painstakingly chisel such specific characters in stone, and takes longer than writing them on paper. The writing was intended to endure longer, and once begun, mistakes couldn’t be easily corrected. How much education did the masons have so they could understand what they were doing without constant supervision by a scribe? Would scribes write the template on a wall with paint, so that illiterate masons could carve over the lines without comprehension?

I’d like to hear about Egyptian hieroglyphs and Mayan writing specifically, but other examples such as Classical or Chinese would be interesting too.

Having grown up in Ireland and watched as many history docs as I can find, I've never come across an answer to this question. Broadly, we are told in our history education that the vast majority of land in Ireland was owned by protestant British or Anglo-Irish landlords by the 19th century.

My question is thus, when and how did this change? (If ever!?) Was there a massive transfer or nationalisation of land ownership after Ireland became independent? Or was there perhaps already a trend of land returning to Irish Catholic ownership by the coming of the 20th century? Or perhaps something else?

I wanna fact check a video game, Company of Heroes 2. Every faction in the game has a sort of mainline rifle unit, usually with a grenade ability. British soldiers get Mills bombs, Americans the classic pineapple grenade, German soldiers actually get rifle grenades instead of the normal Model 24. What I wanted to double check though was the Russian units, they don't get access to any kind of manufactured fragmentation grenades instead they get molotov cocktails and hand thrown anti-tank grenades. Russian fragmentation grenades are in the game but they are locked behind special units, Red Guards presented as elite units comperable to American ranger units, shock troops based off assault engineers, and curiously partisan units presented in civilian clothing and with a mixture of Russian and stolen German weaponry. Were frag grenades just not commonly used by the red army for whatever reason or is this just a quirk of game play?

I've only recently started to learn about these protests/revolts, but from what I've learned, they seem pretty localized in nature, and not necessarily with a larger goal of something we might recognize today as collectivism, democracy, or even just loose confederacy. I'm wondering if there was a wider, more unified structure to these revolts, or if they just occurred around the same time without coordination.

To what extent can the psychological insights that Freud brought into the world be attributed to his prolific use cocaine?

What were the early TV shows like? I imagine there were some significant differences, if only because nobody had experience making TV shows yet.

Oh! And I'd like to know as much as possible about the advertising situation as well. Were shows sponsored at that time?

Say I am an upper middle class German in 1913.

I own stock that trades extensively in London, I have business interests in German-American communities overseas, etc.

I go into a coma and don’t wake up until January 1, 1919.

Do I still own these interests in Allied countries? What steps, if any, do I need to secure my property?

I should make it clear firsthand that I make a distinction between anti-Judaism, or pre-modern hostility to Judaism as a religion informed by theological disputes and/or sectarian prejudice (as exemplified by the general mistreatment of Jews in medieval, Catholic-dominated Europe) and antisemitism, or modern hostility to Jews as an ethnic group informed by nationalist politics and/or racial pseudoscience (as exemplified by the Dreyfus Affair, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and of course eventually the Holocaust) — though of course I understand there exists some degree of overlap between the two.

The reason why I'm asking is the fact that I found a surprising amount of contemporary Middle Eastern antisemitic literature (especially but not exclusively among Islamists) to be little more than a rehash if not mere endorsement of early 20th-century European antisemitism. The Hamas charter is directly inspired by the Protocols and in fact directly referenced the canard outright before its 2017 revision. The arguments employed by Iranian Holocaust deniers are essentially indistinguishable from prior neo-Nazi propaganda, which they sometimes shamelessly parrot.

Did antisemitism proper exist in the Middle East prior to the 1948? If not, what were the vectors for its introduction in the region?