Anyone here familiar with naval history enough to know what kind of facilities were used by ordinary passengers? Specifically, assuming a northern European ship carrying passengers and commercial cargo: how did ordinary passengers sleep - was it cabins? Or were they in bunks in a shared space? And was there a shared space for meals, or did they have to eat in their berth (wherever that was)? Was water distributed for washing? I'm assuming that for toilet needs they had chamber pots they'd empty over the side, does that sound right?

I watched a video by Drachinifel on the incident at Mers-El-Kebir today. It had depth, was well researched, but was possibly a one-sided account of events.

Much is made of Gensoul's attitude and demeanor. Mostly this goes to frame his arrogance as frustrating a fair-handed British attempt at negotiation. The argument spends most of its time focusing on Gensoul's interpreted frame of mind, yet provides no first hand accounts of his thinking. I couldn't help but think that when researching an incident such as this one with mainly British sources focused on the British experience, it should come as no surprise that the blame falls with the opposing side.

Emphasis is put on the supposed duplicity of the Vichy government leading up to the incident. But what is painted as intentional duplicity can also be construed as the actions of a young, unstable and disjointed government that is failing to walk the line between two belligerent powers that are both making demands of its navy; putting it in an impossible position.

Overall, I came away wondering what the French, and specifically, Admiral Gensoul's version of events was. What were their motivations?

A recent kerfuffle on Twitter about American events that are still within the 20 year rule, got me to thinking about the idea of revisionist historical memory with Résistancialisme being a perfect example of what I was thinking about.

For those who don't know, Résistancialisme is a term coined by French historian Henry Rousso to describe the mythos of the French Resistance in post WWII France. The French Resistance was not as supported and popular and the Vichy Regime had more support than popular belief would have you think. However, in post-war France, the reaction against Vichy officials, the Milice, and other collaborationists was often swift, extrajudicial, and brutal. Far Left and Gaulist factions overhyped their participation and role in the Resistance and created a myth that all good French citizens resisted the occupation and tied it to patriotic and nationalist ideals. I can't recall who said it, but I heard a quote that goes something like, "Everyone you asked said they resisted." Over time, France came to reconcile with this mythos which acknowledged not only a broad acceptance of the occupation, but far more complicity than was comfortable to admit, though the idea continues to linger.

So my questions are:

1. How organic was this movement to the citizenry as opposed to exploitation and amplification by political parties such as the communists and Gaulists?
2. How pervasive was this belief among the citizenry?
3. How does it compare to other similar movements by a population/nation/culture to place itself on the "right side of history"? **EXCLUDING THE LOST CAUSE MYTH** (That's an easy, obvious example.)

I am currently reading 'The Caliph's splendor, Islam and the West in the Golden age of Baghdad'. It's an entertaining book and I'm enjoying but I was wondering if I should treat it like historical fiction or it being accurate?

Context: I'm from the Levant in West Asia, where we have a rich heritage of cheese that goes back to millennia. Cheese is deeply engrained in our culinary culture: most of our national dishes have a component of dairy, including desserts (for further info, research: mansaf, knafeh, manakqeesh jibneh, laban).

--

I've been trying to research why cheese is largely absent from East Asian culinary culture.

A common question, but the common answers I've found are either unconvincing or seem to be missing a part of the story, so I'm looking for more help / ideas on what to research, ideally with some further references for me to read.

To avoid long threads of discussions I've already researched, here are some common theories and where I would need further info to validate them:

Common answer 1: "Because East Asians are lactose intolerant".
Issue with this answer: becomes a what came first, the egg or chicken dilemma.

Common answer 2: "Because grazing land / topology / climate of East Asia isn't conducive to herding."
Issue with this answer: East Asian topology is very rich and vast, so this doesn't seem convincing, especially when compared to the Levant for example, where urban dwellers in hilly Mediterranean climates resorted to goat milk while Bedouins in the arid desserts resorted to fermented cheeses that can keep well even in very hot temperatures (research further: jameed, jibneh nabelseyeh).

Common answer 3: "Because animals were mostly used for transport and not for food".
Issue with this answer: A lot of Asian cultures consume farm and consume beef. Examples: Wagyu and Korean bulgogi. Yes, cattle originated somewhere in the Near East or Europe, but it got to the furthest corners of Asia as far back as the 2nd century AD, which seems like a long enough time for a cheese tradition to emerge.

An Isekai is defined as a story that revolves around a person who is transported to another universe.

Googling it returns results such as “Aura Battler Dunbine” which debuted in 1983. My friend and I disagree, as Wizard of Oz was released in 1939. Obviously, this isn’t what Google says as Isekais are most commonly anime.

But, what stories (folktales, movies, shows, books, etc) have the criteria of an Isekai and are older than 1939?

I know the US occupied Japan, but how long? Did it have any long-term effects, like Germany? What did Japan do during the Cold War?

Seems like a marvelous precedent for the idea that "God speaks German."

EDIT: deleted body text question about the Reformation because that is an unfairly broad question and a huge jump in time.

Sorry for the stupid question.

But I am fascinated with the fall of rome.

I always wondered what the culture of the various german tribes that invaded rome in the 4th and 5th century was like compared to roman civilization.

Were they literal fur wearing wildermen barerly a step above cavemen or did they have an advanced civilization of their own.

Did they know about mathematics, astornomy, etc. Did they have scripture?

Which are the reasons because Stalin joined forces with who it was supposed to be an enemy?

I'm watching the Netflix show Barbarian and wolves seem to always be there to attack loners. This is set in the iron age, I think.

Based on recorded history, anecdotes, mythology and the archaeological record, how much do we know of peoples interactions with dangerous animals?

So I was playing rome 2 tw, and I bought the desert kingdom dlc, started playing as kush (since I always loved east African history) and I noticed a lot of similarities between them and egypt. Even the advisor says "we're the last protectors of ancient traditions since the fall of egypt" so I was wondering, how "egyptian" was the kingdom kush, even though it wasn't located in egypt and it was founded by nubians ? Thank you

This might not be accurate, but I’d assume that the average citizen had very limited experience to performed music - maybe from a single instrument or from smaller musical troupes. In this case, I can only imagine that the experience of hearing an orchestral symphony for the first time would be an absolutely overwhelming sensory experience to someone who had only heard simple folk songs until that point in their lives. Are there any accounts of what this was like? I just can't imagine the wonder of what that would feel like considering the lack of all media at the time.

In general what is the historical and political significance of Sicilian identity? Were Sicilians reluctant to be incorporated into unified Italy? And what’s the deal with Northern-Southern Italian relations? I know there’s some like Northern people who look down on Southern Italians, like the far-right Lega party used to be called Lega Nord and was like a regional secessionist or autonomist party for the North. Is “Southern” the same thing as “Sicilian” or are those two separate concepts?

Near the end of the Second World War, the Soviet Union began to invade Japanese holdings in Manchuria and Korea, greatly pressuring the Imperial government and military. This, combined with the threat of the atomic bombs, forced Japan to capitulate and be occupied by the US postwar, reforming into what it is today.

It is my general understanding that many believe that were the bombs not used and Operation Downfall launched, the Soviets would have fully invaded the Korean Peninsula and the northern Japanese mainland, resulting in a North-South division of the country by the rising factions of the coming Cold War.

The Soviets would have completely taken Korea in this scenario, that much is certain, however I do not know how they could have threatened the mainland. From what I know, the Soviet military was comprised mainly of the Red Army, with the Air Force being secondary and the Navy an afterthought. Therefore, their Navy was rather small by comparison to their contemporaries at the time.

Looking over plans for Operation Downfall, the only reason why I see it could have been done was through the monstrous amount of amphibious assault ships and troops built up as a result of the “island hopping” campaign. Since the Soviets never performed such operations, they logically would therefore not have such a capability.

With this in mind, how could the Soviets invade mainland Japan given their severe lack of amphibious forces?

I’m not sure if this is the right subreddit.. if not please redirect me to a more appropriate one.

So recently at university i’ve been analysing community archaeology and the effectiveness of these projects. However, the more i read about archaeology the more I get confused.

I know this might sound incredibly incredibly stupid but how does all that stuff just get BURIED???? Like an entire jar? or a vase? or a cassette? how does that end up 6 feet under the ground?

1. without breaking?
2. how the hell does it get buried, you’re telling me people saw a vase on the floor for years and no one picked it up????
3. even if a vase was left on the floor for years how does it get buried? surely the land doesn’t change that much unless someone digs a hole and puts it in?

I honestly am driving myself crazy thinking about this. I just can’t understand how things end up so far underground? like why didn’t someone ever pick it up off the ground... surely it has to sit there for a while to be buried. especially when the dig is in someone’s back garden or something... you’re telling me you left a plate on your grass for so long that it’s buried under the ground ?!?????

pls help

Most narratives of the Persians typically start with the Assyrian struggles against the Medes then the collapse of the Assyrian Empire to Babylon and Media then starts with Teispes or Cyrus afterward. Since the Persians ended up conquering Anshan and turned Elam into Persia proper I'd like to know the first times the Persians are mentioned. Were they mentioned in Elamite text before Cyrus? What about the Assyrians or Babylonians? Did they have any conflicts or mentions specifically with the Persians prior to the Median Empire?

Title is pretty much the question.

So, I've heard a number of times from Americans that President Andrew Jackson was very racist. And sure, I can imagine that's true, considering he lived in the early 1800s.

My question is, when compared to the common man of his time, was his opinion of POC particularly extreme? Or was he just a man, living in his own time, with beliefs that aged badly but happened to be very common?