If you had migrated to Germany before 1933 and didn't have German citizenship how would Hitler's rise to power influenced your live.

The question is about non-Jewish foreigner as I'm sure that Jewish foreigners would have been killed.

Specifically, I was reading the Sengoku RPG book — which I know not to be a historical source as Academia is concerned, but is still pretty well written and well-informed.

I found in a website that a "mou?" was a half-apron, but the question remains.

I believe it would hold the bottom half, not the upper one, due to its color. However, how it was used and the details of the appearance still eludes me.

Modern Maltese is very heavily influenced by Latin and Romance-languages, but Wikipedia states this started after the rechristianisation of Malta was completed in the 1250's, and reading on the Emirate of Sicily it would seem the pre-conquest Romance-variety of the island had more or less died out by the time of the Norman conquest, leaving me to assume Siculo-Arabic lacked the strong Romance-influence that would come to define Maltese? But what about a Greek-influence? Wikipedia states the emirate's commonfolk would've been a mix of Siculo-Arabic-speaking muslims and Greek-speaking christians, and then ofc the Romance-speakers puttering on in the background, did this sizable Greek community leave any linguistic mark on Siculo-Arabic?

Since Salt was used as a preservative for meats and all sorts of perishables - is it fair to say that Sailors would suffer from high blood pressure and too much sodium? Were there any other ill effects from a diet at sea aside from Scurvy?

I'm working on an university research project regarding Jewish-Arab relations in Mandatory Palestine up to 1932. I have a plethora of British and Jewish primary sources to supplement my study. However, I'm struggling to find primary sources from Arab perspectives. I can only read and speak English, but I haven't been able to find a reader or collection of Palestinian Arab primary sources relevant to the topic of Jewish-Arab relations from 1914-1932.

I'm seeking two main Palestinian Arab perspectives: a "history from below" approach (letters, interviews, diaries from "average" Palestinian Arabs), and then sources from Palestinian Arab elites (memoirs, party platforms, political newspapers, etc.) While I have found an archive of Palestinian Arab newspapers, they are not translated into English. I do have Walid Khalidi's collection of Palestinian Arab photographs, as well as his reader, but the latter contains no Arab sources from the period of interest.

I've become a bit desperate and wonder if translations of Palestinian Arab primary sources from 1914-1932 even exist. I'm hoping you all would be able to help!

I'd appreciate any scholars who are able to point me in the right direction or even provide me with the link to a Palestinian Arab reader or collection of primary sources from 1914-1932. Are there any readers or collections out there? Are there any sites which have translated newspapers, diaries, letters, etc. ?

Thank you!

All of Greeks "derivative languages" are read and written left to right. (Latin, Etruscan, Georgian, Cyrillic) Whereas Aramaic (also deriving from Phoencian) and it's derivatives are all right to left.

• Was it an intentional break for cultural conflict reasons?

• Are there any accounts of deliberation or debate over the intentional structure for written Greek?

• Are there practical benefits to writing left to right that they might have considered?

I mean, doesn't "We are going to kill all of you regardless" force a crew to fight to the last drop, making things all the harder?

I couldn't find a lot about it on the internet (I was not sure about the right keywords).

To be clear, I'm asking if it is all or most religions, be ancient or modern, that are based on the concept of Good VS Evil. Furthermore, is "Satan" - or whatever you want to call him - as a personified Evil present in most/all of them? Thank you.

The Holocaust ate up a lot of resources, time, and personnel that Germany could have spent directly on trying to win WWII.

Surely an advisor to Hitler said something to the tune of, "Hey, Adolf. This Holocaust is a money pit. I know we're obscenely racist, but how about we focus our resources on killing the enemies who are actually shooting at us in our giant multifront war? We'll get around to genocide after we win."

Why didn't the Nazis do this? Were they just so racist that they couldn't stomach the idea of delaying the Holocaust for the sake of war strategy? Or are there other reasons this didn't happen?

Since Hitler obviously turned down this idea, another advisor must've said something like, "How about we just conscript all the Jews and other undesirables and use them as cannon fodder, putting them in battles where they're highly likely to die? When the war's over, we can swing back around and finish off any who manage to survive. It'll kill two birds with one stone and we'll let the Allies spend a fortune killing them rather than wasting our own money."

Why didn't the Nazis take this path?

I don't understand why the Nazis didn't postpone the Holocaust to focus resources on the war and I would appreciate any light you can shed on this.

The spanish once had a global empire. Can someone explain, how a nation that stole a continent worth of gold and silver managed to still be poor ?

I know of cookbooks such as the Liber de Coquina, but surely peasants would not have access to these…

I'm more specifically interested in how exactly they were used, I know ransoming rich and important prisoners was common, but for how much? What exactly would holding minor nobility get the captors vs someone more important like royalty or such?

How many important prisoners of war were ransomed compared to how many were used by the captors in other ways such as prisoner trades or political bargaining chips? Is there any specific examples of important POWs being used as political bargaining chips?

Was being killed in captivity, or simply dying due to poor conditions, common for political prisoners, or were they usually treated decently?

And I'm not talking about Rome or Carthage or Persia here, I'm talking about small not very populated states like Epirus (in the Pyrrhic War) and Macedon (in the Macedonian Wars), who were able to field at least 25000 men, which was already larger than many medieval armies and nearly as large as the fully mobilized French army at that time.

Can anyone link me to some references about when Hesiods poems were first recorded and written down? Was it during his lifetime? and how were they written down? on parchment with a quill pen?

Thank you!

So, it's pretty well know nowadays that the standard fantasy setting is often a medival-esqe setting, usually with at least elves and dwarves. We have Tolkien to thank for that.

However, because storytelling is about as old as humanity itself, I was wondering what the standard setting for a fantasy tale would be during the time period that, nowadays, we often associate with fantasy.

I was reading an article about knights and misconceptions about them and came across certain claims such as:

These modern expectations exist because they have precedent in medieval literature. The opening of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight—the decapitation of the Green Knight (he got better) by the noble Sir Gawain—takes place in King Arthur’s feast hall. In Thomas Malory’s fifteenth-century Arthurian tales (Le Morte d’Arthur), Arthur’s court is the setting for countless duels, brawls, and other acts of violence. In Beowulf, the titular hero’s fight with the villainous Grendel rages through Heorot—the imposing mead hall of King Hroðgar...

But the thing is, these knightly and heroic tales are clearly fiction. They are medievalist tropes used by medieval authors, but they are still medievalist tropes. Malory and the other later medieval authors gleefully imposed the ideas and ideologies of their own time on the earlier medieval periods they described. They used popular ideas of the early medieval to tell their stories. Actual events were an afterthought.

Is there any historical precedence for such battles? Are they entirely the invention of later authors?