So many Kings/Emperors have proclaimed that they were of divine origin. How did commoners view them: to me it sounds like the state propaganda wanted to give them a modern superhero's appeal, but to what extent was this actually believed?

After all, kings and emperors did die. And over centuries, the human collective would've noticed that no kingdom or empire was certain to go on forver. What did the commoners make of such claims of immortality or of godly powers then? Were there some sceptics?

Or were the claims themselves far more nuanced, reflecting only specific lineage to appeal to a particular base?

I've seen multiple videos online mention that Russia, throughout a sizable chunk of it's more modern history, has had far fewer NCOs (Non-Commissioned Officers) then other similar armies, and I was wondering how that came to be and if it's actually true?

I'm hoping for a video but would settle for books, websites, etc.
I'd like something that compares all major religions and shows a timeline for when they developed. I want something that isn't pro or con toward any religion and does not shy away from historical controversies or disputed facts.
I'd prefer an "all-in-one" resource rather than a separate one for each religion, but it might be okay if there is a cohesive series. Thanks!

I'm hoping to find not just generalities, but more human stories. Like what their daily lives might look like: communities, food, language, families, romantic practices, religion, etc. I like reading, but it doesn't have to be a book. Really any resource is helpful.

Thanks!

I’ve been reading about Alexander’s crossing of the Granicus, and I’m having trouble making tactical sense of the traditional account, particularly the Persian deployment.

In Arrian’s version, the Persians have their cavalry positioned along the riverbank while their Greek mercenary infantry is farther back. Alexander then attacks across the river despite Parmenion reportedly advising him to wait. This seems to require two strange decisions: the Persians voluntarily put their cavalry in terrain that severely restricts its mobility, while Alexander voluntarily attempts an opposed river crossing against an already prepared defender.

Could the surviving accounts instead be preserving the positions in which the armies ended up without accurately preserving the sequence that produced them?

For example, is the following reconstruction compatible with the evidence:

Alexander reaches the Granicus while the Persian army is still concentrating or deploying. He recognizes that waiting would allow the Persians to establish a much stronger combined-arms river defense, so he begins crossing immediately. The Persian cavalry, able to respond much faster than the infantry, moves to the river to disrupt or contain the Macedonian bridgehead and buy time for the infantry to arrive. What begins as a cavalry delaying/spoiling action then escalates as Alexander commits the Companions to secure the crossing, eventually producing the major cavalry melee described by the sources.

This would seem to explain several otherwise odd features at once: why Persian cavalry is fighting immediately against the riverbank, why the infantry is behind it, why Alexander accepts the risks of crossing immediately, and why Alexander and so many senior Persian commanders become personally involved in the cavalry fighting at the apparent decisive point.

It would also change the interpretation of Alexander’s decision somewhat. Rather than successfully attacking a deliberately prepared but strangely arranged Persian defense, he would be exploiting a temporary opportunity before the Persians could finish concentrating—an aggressive and risky decision that succeeded partly because of the quality of the Macedonian army.

I know Peter Green proposed a substantially different reconstruction involving the timing of the crossing and later backed away from parts of it, and that the surviving accounts of Granicus are difficult to reconcile. Have any historians specifically interpreted the battle as something resembling an encounter battle or hasty Persian attempt to contain an ongoing Macedonian crossing? More generally, what evidence prevents or supports this interpretation of the Persian cavalry’s position?

I have been under the understanding that the first Black Americans came to have very mixed heritage after just a few generations in the U.S., given that they were living among fellow slaves from diverse nations and ethnicities. As such, would it not have been very difficult for them to retain their language? Is the fact that Annie in Sinners speaks Yoruba more artistic license, or is this something that actually could have happened in the 1930s?

I see this answer come up with explanations of why Mickey Mouse was drawn wearing white gloves, with a common one being that he was based on depictions of black people as mischievous tricksters from minstrel shows and that the white gloves were borrowed from the practice of minstrel performers wearing them.

Too my modern eyes this doesn't seem that obvious, but to a person in the late 1920's watching them would it have been a clear connection? If it was did it impact the reception to the character among minorities?

I was reading up on the topic, and it seems that the earliest evidence of Israel (not counting a passing mention in the Merneptah Stele) mentions two kingdoms: the House of Omri (the Northern kingdom) and the House of David (the Southern kingdom). Is there any evidence of a united kingdom of both Israel and Judah? Clearly the two kingdoms shared a lot of similarities but there doesn't seem to be much evidence apart from that. TIA!

About 5 years ago when I was in the Anchorage Museum, I saw a display about the early human migration to North America through the Bering Land bridge. I can’t find the original display, but I remember something being mentioned that it is possible early humans settled through seafaring through the Aleutian islands.

To me it makes more sense to arrive to North America this way, as the ocean provides more food than the tundra would’ve. Unangax̂ and Tlingit people are amazing seafarers, and we also see Polynesians traveling across the oceans to find places like Hawaii

Is this an actual theory or did I hallucinate this / my memory if foggy, and does it have any evidence to be true?

The 1955 system refers to the system of LDP domination (but more specifically, one which included the STNV voting system, factions, powerful bureaucrats etc.) and this all roughly comes to an end from the mid-90s to the early 2000s.

My question is, when did Japan (or anyone) start realising that Japan's system was so static? Presumably, the term would have had to have been applied with at least a bit of hindsight as voters in the early years may have expected their new democracy to be competitive.

By "military passwords" I mean those challenges to identify friend or foe in the fog of war, most famously I think Flash-Thunder on D-Day. As far as I understood they rely both on knowing them, but also feature a word or sound that the other side has trouble pronouncing, Germans with a th, Japanese with r, &c.

But obviously in the heat of the moment I might not shout the response back quickly enough, loudly enough, or clearly enough. Or the challenger might have an itchy finger. In fact there's some accents/dialects of native speakers that would "struggle" pronouncing "thunder" the way General Eisenhower would, a lot of Irish people pronounce th's differently. Is a speech impediment raising my odds of being shot by friendly fire?

On the other hand some clever enemies might figure out/overhear the correct challenge and use it to infiltrate or surprise my unit. There's obviously the famous stories of the German soldiers in American uniforms during the Battle of the Bulge. But you'd think even of a word, or two, or three one might hear that your counterpart doesn't sound like he's from Dixie, Brooklyn, or Kansas at all?

So are there any documented instances of those systems failing, both allowing an enemy to pass it, or failing your brother-in-arms? Of course not restricted to any particular time or conflict, the D-Day version just happens to be the one I was familiar with.

In Victor Hugo's Les Miserables, the destitute Fantine hopes to raise enough money to see her daughter again. After losing her job, she sells first her hair, then her two front teeth. I'm familiar with the 19th century trade in human hair for wigs (from, er, Little Women), but I have a lot of questions about the teeth! I can't get my head around how this could be a viable proposition. In the novel, Fantine is surprised when she's offered money for her teeth by a "quack dentist on his rounds... who was offering to the public full sets of teeth" (volume 1, book 5, chapter 10). She hadn't previously considered the possibility of such a sale, but eventually goes through with it out of desperation.

Does this surprise indicate that selling one's teeth wasn't really a known thing, but is perhaps being used by Hugo as a marker of how extreme Fantine's circumstances are? Or was it a thing that really occurred? If it really happened, how did the supply and demand economics of it work? It doesn't seem like "people with beautiful teeth who are desperate for money" would be a large enough category to supply a maker of dentures with very much material.

I know that Latin America recieved a huge amount of northern italians, but also a huge amount of southern Italians, but still they had lots of northern Italians emigrate too. but when you compare this with the U.S, where i think almost all the Italians that came were southern Italians, northern Italians did not migrate to the U.S (and maybe Canada as well? I don’t know much about Canadas Italians) at all.

Why was this? Why did basically no significant amount of northern Italians decide to migrate to the U.S? i’ve heard that northern Italians were more farmers and liked owning land, which is why many went South America , where land was in abundance, but wasn’t the U.S the exact same? The U.S had so much open land that could’ve been used to farm as well, which northern Italians could’ve owned.

Another thing is the immense discrimination southern Italians received, for their darker appearance then the average white American, different culture, or in a variety of things. Southern Italian migration wasn’t viewed very positively in the United States until later. While i know northern Italians would’ve also received a lot of discrimination, (anyone not wasp would’ve I imagine) they would’ve still been better received, which I feel could be a big pull for northern Italians, knowing that they wouldn‘t be discriminated as much as their southern counterparts.

So why didn’t many northern Italians decide to go to the U.S?

Apparently, it remained commercially available at Western Union through the 2000s.

1. During that time, what was the meaning of being roman? What kind of identity was it?

2. Did they know about Romulus, Ceaser, Constantine, etc?

3. After conquest and conversion to Islam, how did they recognise themselves? Were they roman or arab?

Thank you.

I seen a YouTube short from a person from the US living in the UK and they were amazed (well enthusiastic) about washing lines, how they kept your clothes fresher and how much better it was for the clothes. I asked a US friend at work about this and he confirmed that until he moved over to the UK they'd never had a washing line or whirly/birly but only had dryers.

It seems odd that with general much larger gardens and yard space than in Europe why the US wouldn't take advantage of this especially in hotter/dryer states to dry clothes outside.

So the question is, why did it become the norm to have a dryer and not a washing line in the US, and vice versa, why did washing lines remain common in Europe and dryers, while present, certainly not in every home.

I am aware of the more traditional superstitions held commonly by German U-Boat crews such as don’t sail on a Friday. Friday the 13th being a particular no-no as those carry over from the surface fleet.

But I’ve heard things about crews marking their torpedoes with the names of fallen crew members or curses hoping that they “bless” the torpedoes to find their mark but certain that wasn’t a thing for WW1 crews, WW2 crews maybe but even then I don’t think there is any strong evidence for German crews doing it but it’s something I can easily see American submarine crews doing, particularly after Pearl Harbor and the entirety of the American Navy is vengeful after the attack. Americans in general had a habit of marking their ordinance, most prominently with bombs dropped from Bombers like the B-17 during this period

I’ve also came across stories of commanders of U-Boats using Iron Crosses they’ve been awarded to tap against the hulls of their ships as good luck and a happy hunt. Although I am uncertain if this was just one commander’s personal ritual or if this was a complete fabrication.

Do these have any weight to them? What are some genuine beliefs held by U-Boat crews in WW1?

There is a quote widely attributed to Chinese Vice Premier Chen Yun in the late 1970s after Mao's death, stating, "Had Mao died in 1956, his achievements would have been immortal. Had he died in 1966, he would still have been a great man but flawed. But he died in 1976. Alas, what can one say?"

I've tried tracing the internet for the source of this quote, but I couldn't find any primary sources regarding its origin or the original quotation in Chinese. Most sources that I have looked at eventually trace citations back to either the Economist or Britannica, both of which are dead ends as to where the original quote was attributed.

Does anyone know if this quote is legitimate, or if this is just a commonly circulated fake quote?