My very general understanding is that there were two divisions of Somali soldiers, under the command of Italy which was still the colonial ruler of what is now Somalia (among other areas in East Africa). Were these soldiers forcibly conscripted, did they generally volunteer, or was it a mixture of the two? Additionally, did Germany have any command over these troops, or were they solely organized by the Italians? Finally, how were the Somali troops treated following defeat of Italy in East Africa by British-led forced?

We all know the stereotypical depiction of knights, swearing their loyalty to a lord, and slaying a dragon while wearing stylish plate-armour. Lately, I've come to the conclusion that dragons do not exist, so that made me wonder what their actual role in medieval society was. Were they just noble titles? were they military commanders (the leader of a group of infantrymen for example), or maybe a special unit like cavalry?

I'm asking specifically about knights who were properly knighted and who swore loyalty to a lord, not just a heavily armored soldier.

I understand that the middle ages was a very long period of time, and that depending on the time and place things could be very different, so for the purpose of this question we're talking specifically Northwestern Europe, during the time were you would find your stereotypical knight, around the early- to middle- middle ages, so no renaissance Italy, and before the resurgence of the big cities in general.

A lot of modern day Santa Claus mythology is somewhat borrowed from the Norse god Odin (a bearded wanderer who enters homes through chimneys; the eight reindeer are reminiscent of the eight-legged reindeer Sleipnir, etc.). That's all well and good, seeing as lots of Christmas borrows from the ancient Norse/Germanic holiday Yule which may have been worshiping Odin.

But also Santa is St. Nicholas. St. Nick was an actual guy who lived in southern Anatolia, was the patron saint of sailors and punched a guy in the face at the Council of Nicaea.

I get why they wanted to replace Odin with someone less pagan-y (they were Christians now, after all!), and with the Catholic tradition of venerating saints, it makes sense that they went with a saint. But why didn't the northwestern European tradition that gave us Santa pick a northwestern European saint? Why not just, like, turn Odin into a saint ("Saint Odin") in the same way that the Irish turned Brigid into Saint Brigid, or make up a possibly-fictional saint like I think what happened with Saint Valentine? Why pick Saint Nicholas instead of any of the many, many other saints?

I’m talking around 500 CE, give or take a couple hundred years. If they did have “museums” then what were they like? How were they run and what contents would they hold?

Reading in another sub and someone confidently stated that Roman gladiators were usually vegan. Is this true? Did the diet change over time?

I am sorry if this is a common question. But I just came across the thumbnail for a youtube video about Nazi meth use and "supersoldiers". I didn't watch it, but I remembered that Hitler was using some sort of amphetamine up until his death. Not only that, but some soldiers were given the same drug to "perform better".

When it comes to ACTUAL usage of amphetamines, how prevalent was it? Is it possible that it was a drug to be used only by elite units? If it was produced, then how much? How much do we really know about Nazi meth usage?

psychologist

The second the European powers realized the Americas existed, they spared no time colonizing them. Canada and the States were British and French colonies. Mexico, Central America, and nearly everything in South America became a Spanish colony. Portugal colonized Brazil. And some tiny countries at the northeast of South America were colonized by France, England, etc. (eg. French Guiana today). European powers brought over many African slaves to the New World. So, it appears to be evident that the European powers had massive control, and general impact in Africa. So why did the European powers only start officially colonizing Africa following the Berlin conference? Did they not have enough power to colonize Africa before, because it appears that they were able to colonize the Americas with ease, so why did they wait so long to colonize Africa?

Tea Tephi, an Egyptian Princess (born in Spain but later adopted by an Egyptian Pharaoh) who escaped Egypt to Ireland with Jeremiah the Prophet (bringing with them possibly the Ark of the Covenant). She married High King Heremon 'Erimon' Eochaidh to fulfill the prophecy of joining the Line of Zarah (of the Red Hand) with the Line Pharaz (of the Lion Tribe) and their offspring becoming the “Majestic Cedar”. All of the royal lines of Ireland, Scotland and England trace back to this union. While in Ireland Tea Tephi and King Heremon instituted The Laws of the Torah (hence the name “Hill of Tara”).

If someone described a giraffe or elephant to me I’d think they were made up.

A black and white stripy horse is just as improbable, and doesn’t even have the advantage of being imaginative.

A fish the size of a house also sounds like a tall story.

A sea creature with 8 legs and 3 hearts? Pull the other one Walter.

Don’t even get me started on a black and white bird that walks on its hind legs and can’t fly.

All of these sound less probably than a horse with a single horn or a human who swims with a tail instead of legs.

Were visitors who returned from exotic locations with stories of the animals they’d seen there regularly disbelieved?

I (an American) recently had the chance to visit the Dachau Concentration Camp in Germany. There was an excellent museum in it all about the Holocaust and the rise of Nazism in Germany. What impressed me most was how well a) the horrors of Nazi Germany were displayed and b) how well charted the Nazi rise to power was. However, a couple of the displays made some interesting comments about big businesses being ardent supporters of the regime early on. Full quotes from two different posters here (bolding my own):

1. "Many of the predominantly national-conservative members of the state apparatus were opponents of the Republic and favored the rise of the NSDAP. Even aristocratic big landowners and representatives of big industry regarded the National Sodalists as partners in an efforts to reform the Republican into an authoritarian political system."
2. "In both Reichstag elections of 1932, the NSDAP became the strongest party in parliament. A group of army general, heavy industrialists, and big landowners pressured the Reich President, Paul Von Hindenburg, to appoint Adolf Hitler Reich Chancellor."

I'm not disputing the fact that big businesses supported Hitler, but, amidst everything else in the museum, there was a odd air of scapegoating in this phrasing to me. Is there a well documented history of "big business" being a swing power player in specifically supporting the Nazi rise to power because they believed in the cause or was it just a business attitude of wanting to do away with the economic weakness of the Republic and thinking Hitler could fix that?

(I can provide the rest of the display's texts if need be - but I didn't think they added much more context.)

I'm currently reading Out of the East by Paul Freedman (a very interesting book) and I'm struck by how much emphasis the medical opinion of the time placed on the health effects of spices. I was pondering, was this a professionally accepted and wide-held belief?

I imagine if one consulted the popular literature of today, future historians may be inclined to the same conclusion of us: that we have very strong beliefs in fairly outlandish health benefits offered by certain foods.

My question is: Did medical Europe hold a near-universal and professional belief of the health benefits of spices? Or was there an element of "pop-health" at play just as we have today.

I hope that question is clear, and I appreciate that any medical science that was held before the scientific method will be hard to untangle from pop-medicine at the best of times. Would love to hear from anyone well versed in this field.

I've been searching all over the internet and have been getting different responses. There's a few questions that come to mind for me. Do you need a degree in education? Where is the best country to become a history professor? How long would it take? When you become a history professor, do you pick one field to specialize in? I was hoping I would get some answers on here as I haven't been able to find direct answers any other way.

Hey historians,

I'm doing a presentation on Tito and need help with finding legitimate sources on Tito. Can be book sources, but preferably web sources. Also need an interview about him if anybody knows about any good short interview.

Thanks in advance

I just toured the Lee house, which is within Arlington National Cemetery, and was surprised to learn that President Ford gave Robert E. Lee a full pardon. Ford became president more than 100 years after Lee's death, and well after the Civil Rights movement.

What were the national politics of the time that influenced the Ford administration to pardon Lee? What was happening in Congress that made the pardon palatable? I assume this has to do with the Republicans' 'southern strategy,' but if so, why didn't Nixon pardon Lee before Ford? And finally, did it work--did Ford secure the southern vote?

A sub-question to address if you feel generous: if the incentives of the Southern Strategy were solid, why was Lee not pardoned by earlier presidents, particularly a) immediately after the war, when he was granted an amnesty oath by Andrew Johnson, b) before the Civil Rights movement, when much of the south was dominated by overtly racist political structures that purveyed romantic notions of the Confederacy?

I’m in Indiana right now where we’re facing -11 temps with high winds. I’ve been curious how the Natives managed to survive these types of winter storms? Were there specific structures they had in place? Did they know the land well enough to get ahead of those storms?

I'm watching "For All Mankind" and realized I'd never really thought about the psychological and propaganda impact of not being first to the moon. Did the Soviet leadership see it as a major loss? Do we know what the mood was in the Kremlin? How was it communicated in the Soviet media?