If someone can be deafened by simply being around loud machinery for a while how the hell did everyone not go permanently deaf during ww1 (this also extends to every other war where guns were used w no hearing protection) like having explosions happen around you for days even months on end must have resulted in huge amounts of men loosing hearing right?

Forgive me if this has been asked, I did check the sub and saw that Onfim has been discussed before but not this question specifically.

I really love this little bit of history, and I love showing people Onfim's drawings for the first time, but I've never seen any sources that tell us what became of Onfim when he grew up. Do we know what happened to him, or does he just sort of disappear into the veil of history as his drawings become less frequent? Do we know what kind of jobs his parents had that they might have passed down to him?

Also, I've seen some people claim that Onfim is roughly the name "Larry" now. Is that accurate?

For me it's half way between Western and Eastern.

Most of Archaic Greece elements are derived from the Near East. And subsequent Near Eastern civs were influenced by the Greeks (most notably the vestiges of the Macedonian empire and the Islamic Golden Age).

There's a case to be made for the Roman civilisation to have been Western from the outset (Alphabet, language (latin giving rise to the Romance languages), law, its geographic location and ultimately the Roman Catholic heritage)

But I feel Westerners looked for where democracy originated, and pointed that Greece must be Western, whereas it could have been its own thing.

I hope I make sense

I was reading about Indian independence and I was surprised to learn that almost all the leaders of the movement received educations at extremely prestigious British schools. Why would the British do this given that having such highly educated natives would make maintaining colonial domination so much more difficult? Wouldn't they have been better off keeping the populace unable to organize effective resistance?

If it the specifics help, the soldier was in the Anglo Indian Force attached to the 7th Hussars 4th Cavalry Signal Brigade.

I'm wondering around several subquestions:

- How might socializing have happened between these two groups and how was it looked upon by both Assyrian Iraqis and the British military?

- Obviously WWII was going on but from my reading that period was fairly peaceful in Iraq. What strategic reason might they have been stationed there and was it more to do with WWII or protecting British oil interest (or something else)?

- Would there have likely been any mixing, socially or otherwise, with the Assyrian / Iraq Levies at RAF Habbaniya?

- Are there any books or resources I could use to find out more about the political and social context of WWII-era Iraq, the Levies and British military presence?

Thanks for any insight into any of these questions!

Were they elected by the courts of each county? Or the nobility? I find it hard to believe the general population of a select county formally elected two civilians. Were general elections common during the 1200s (a period of mostly strict Parliamentary and noble rule)

Hey, I am interested in reading prehistoric books, I have read "Sapiens" but I think it's too biased and superficial. Are there any prehistoric books of quality that go in-depth into the lives of hunter-gatherer societies?

Oddly enough, this question came to me while listening to a Spanish Audible version of Harry Potter, in which witches and wizards are referred to as magos (wizards) y brujas (witches). Spanish is a gendered language; the -o typically designates male, the -a female; therefore, there exists, in the language, a feminine mago (maga) as well as a masculine bruja (brujo). But the parallel terms are not used in the translation. Maybe the Spanish translation is just being uber-literal, from the English, but the two different words suggest different status. In the Potter books, male and female spellcasters are of equal status, despite the two different terms used to name them.But in modern parlance, the two words conjure up VERY different images.

I am aware that men have been persecuted for witchcraft ("More men than women were prosecuted for witchcraft in countries such as Normandy, Estonia, Burgundy, Russia and Iceland," according to a 2019 piece in iNews UK). Would they have been referred to as "witches," or simply "men accused of witchcraft?"

In English, most people think that the masculine for witch is "worlock," but those are two different entities, I think. There are gendered words in English for sorceror/-ess, enchanter/-tress, implying that the male and the female are of the same ilk. But "witch" and "wizard" remain stubbornly separate. So I guess, big, broad question here:

​

• Historically, have "witch" and "wizard" (or mage, magician...) always had a.) specifically gendered associations; b.) different implications (i.e. the magician is the wise, sagely, old academic type, and the witch is the more wild, darker, mysterious, earthly type?)

I know there's not a lot of English language research available on the the topic and sources are limited even in Spanish and Portuguese. But I'm hoping by narrowing my question's scope (compared to others I've seen posted) might offer some opportunities.

How did Paraguayan mothers perceive their children's upbringing in a world with fewer male figures than their own generations had?

Thanks!

I spend quite a bit of time looking at ancient art, but I just realized I've never seen any that depicts his death. Since there are multiple versions of how he died in literature, I've become curious what (if anything) the art says. Thanks.

Was the American Army segregated simply on a white/non-white basis, or were units composed of only one race? Into which units would, say, a Navajo or Japanese-American man be placed? What would happen when a minority unit was depleted in combat? Was it absorbed into a white unit, or just grouped with another minority unit?

Trying to keep the issue in question short:

- Both in school, and reading the opinions of historians specially in this sub of various theorical preferences, and from my own materialist theorical preference, we usually see the struggles and conflicts of History as fundamentally based on cultural, political and economic issues of their times. As Marx said, “The history of all human society is the history of class struggles", just to mention a particular point of view where history is not seem as the reflection of individual wills of historical leaders.

- But in the fiction of A Song of Ice and Fire, which is supposed to be a "realist" take on fantasy, including politics in it, those non-individual struggles of society are less present. Maybe one could argue Game of Thrones reflects a crisis of legitimacy in the imaginary feudalism of Westeros. But in House of the Dragon, specifically, the struggle is 100% individual and familiar. Both sides are afraid they're going to die if the other has the power and that's more or less it. There isn't a deeper issue of religion, political legitimacy, class warfare or economy motivating what will become a major civil war (oops, spoilers?). I'm nicknaming it an "apolitical struggle", because the two parties at war do not represent different political directions for the fictional Seven Kingdoms.

- So, where there ever relevant "apolitical struggles" in History - personal struggles among leading people that did not reflect societal issues? The coups and plots in the Roman Empire and its sucessors are sometimes portrayed like that in some media, but were they really like that? Was the struggle over those societal issues less intense in pre-modern societies?

Recently I was in Istanbul, but being very interested in history myself I couldnt help but think why this extremely important city had no colosseum, as surely the romans would've built one on such an important city, which Constantinople was at the time.

Everywhere I look, it's books describing modern people travelling the silk road and then tying their journey to the modern world. I'm trying to find ancient accounts of the silk road, if any exist. Are there any translated works from before 1700? Any proper history books or documentaries that anyone good recommend would be welcome, too!

This question came to me after I realized that in the medieval period, I had heard of Thai and Burmese kingdoms just "existing," but I don't know where they originated.