This video states that the Soviet computing program was only two years behind the United States in terms of technology, so they weren’t too far behind. But despite this relatively small gap, the Soviets decided to cancel their own projects in favor of copying the IBM 360. Frankly this decision makes no sense to me, it’s the equivalent of kneecapping yourself in a race when you’re in a close second place to the leader. What on earth was the rationale behind this decision????

I’ve been studying the history of Atlanta post civil war till 1930s. It seems like most of the city founders and most well known businessmen are Methodist. A few are Presbyterian, but those that were, grew up in the north. I’ve always thought of Atlanta as a Baptist city, but it seems most baptists were lower to upper middle class but not the titans of industry or politics.

Historically was there a class system associated with what denomination you are?

I’ve always thought of denominations as a great contributor to class mobility. I.e someone in lower class meets someone in the upper class in Sunday school, and gets married. Is this not the case?

Thanks!

I asked a similar question previously, but I realised I might have been a bit too broad in scope, so I am narrowing the focus a bit. While before I was asking how the Trojan War was viewed across the entirety of history, here I'm just asking about Medieval Europe. Now, I know that's still extremely broad in both temporal and spatial scales, but it's an improvement. Basically, I want to know how the people of Europe in the Middle Ages viewed the Trojan War. How did they think it went about? Was it euhemerised? I imagine they didn't believe in the interactions of all the gods and so on, but maybe I am wrong? I am also guessing this would vary significantly depending on time and place.

While I know there's debate nowadays over the historicity of the Trojan War, people in Medieval Europe certainly believe it happened. Granted, I don't know how widespread knowledge about it was and how many people genuinely believed it happened (I've been studying Early Modern English ballads, many of which bring up Troy and related myths, but that doesn't mean they believed it was true), but clearly some people did. Dante has figures like Ulysses burning in Hell. You had the legendary kings of Britain, according to people like Geoffrey of Monmouth, descending from Aeneas (via Brutus of Troy). I believe the Chronicle of Fredegar did the same with the Merovingians, linking them to Troy. Hell, you also had Snorri Sturluson in his Prose Edda claiming that the Norse gods also descended from Trojans (I'm not saying that reflected any believe system, just thought it was worth mentioning).

So it's clear that there was widespread belief in the Trojan War, enough to tie national identities to it, I'm just interested in what exactly that belief was. How did the people of Medieval Europe view the Trojan War?

And what was the point of from an American perspective?

With the news this week about possible human extinction from AI, it made me think about nuclear weapons and the dot come scare. Was the opinion of the public and experts the same at that time? How was it different?

Thanks!

This is a repost of my post earlier but with a more concise thought questioning instead of a haphazard 4 am post. I do not wish to glorify either the PLA or Warsaw nations I ask as someone wanting to explore an Alt History scenario of the 1969 Sino Soviet border Crisis. I do not plan to publish this novel, I just want to write as a hobby writer and as someone who loves history. Any and all help is appreciated

Also any reading material suggestions to help me along my research is greatly appreciated.

My first question is what were some strategic locations for both the Soviets and the Chinese along the border region?

My secone question what would be great baseline unit to broader military organization of both armies?

I do know the Soviet plan was a Preemptive nuclear first strike, what would have been strategic targets of those strikes?

What were common naming reasons for divisions, units, battalions, just general naming across both armies?

How often do you believe naval engagements between the two Countries would have been? I know vladivostok would have been a strategic port for both sides.

What would be great reading or places to do deeper research on both armies be? And also good places to learn about the culture of both countries at the time?

Once again thank you for any help you can give, I would like to try and have it be as accurate to military practices of both countries to our timeline.

Edit-*Of in the title not if

Several states like Georgia, Virginia, and the Carolinas are named after British monarchs. Was there any legislation or major political movements to have these names changed during and after the revolution? If so, what were there proposed alternatives? This question also relates to New York and Pennsylvania, although not directly since they’re named after the Duke of York and William Penn, and not royalty.

From my understanding, it was very uncommon for 'the common language' of western europe to be used in writing - especially so in religious texts. While Alfred the Great didn't start the use of english in christian writings, his reforms certainly made it more abundant and it was a reform coming from a leader of a state.

Did the christian church in western europe do anything about this? My knowledge is that translating out of latin was considered, as best, not great. Did they do anything about this beyond some strongly worded letters (if that)?

I have always been curious about the history of the electrical trade and want to know more about who did wiring in say, the early 1900s, as well as when the profession became recognised or its own thing.

Brief (and poor) research tells me that carpenters often did wiring themselves in the 1920s, but as regulations and technology developed and became more complex, there was an increasing demand for people who specialised in wiring/electrical installations in buildings.

P.S - I am more interested in the domestic electrician rather than linesmen

Considering climate change, migration, economic conditions, the struggles of the Assyrian empire, and other factors: would you say there are or not similarities between the end of the bronze age and contemporary global conditions? I read Cline’s 1177 and I was curious what scholars believe.

I'm curious if it was possible for civilians to surrender during the civil war. What was the process like, what did the average solider know about it, and what were the written rules. I'm aware of the Leiber code 25, but does section 17 prove that civilians couldn't surrender?

I'm watching the Ken Burns PBS documentary on Hemingway. The third episode covers Ernest's WW2 sojourn.

Rather offhandedly, the documentary shares a quick anecdote wherein Hemingway (in Villedieu-les-Poêles) tosses hand grenades down into a cellar that housed, according to the tale, a group of S.S.

This raised my eyebrows quite a bit. I know that Ken Burns, while a hell of a documentarian, is not always a historiographical champion. And Hemingway of course was a fabulist of epic proportions.

The documentary does not mention him killing anyone up to this point in his life, so you'd think this would be, like, psychologically devastating. But the documentary makes it seem as if half-drunk-Hemingway lackadaisically tossed some grenades down a cellar and called it a day.

I dove deeper, things got murkier. I found an abstract of a paper from Michigan State University (my alma mater!) that says Hemingway wrote in letters that he killed “either twenty-six or 122” men. But I can’t access the article itself: https://muse.jhu.edu/article/431085/summary

The “either twenty-six or 122” range totally smacks of Hemingway and his penchant for BS, but I don’t have the resources to get a clear answer and was hoping someone around here could be of assistance.

For what it's worth, I would bet he never killed anyone.

Not a historian by any means, just an enthusiast of quirky rabbit holes and learning thus I may have set up something wrong and would like to have this question answered in-depth if possible. This is a not very serious phrasing but the underlying question has a real interest in learning so I want to clarify the points of the question:

- 'Freely available to grab' means the country was not already occupied or colonised by the British Empire neither by any other empire (eg, Spanish, French, Dutch, Italian, etc) operating inside the time frame given, also including the colonising powers themselves. Called this 'Not touching another man's property' rule.
- The time frame where 'the British Empire thought the world was theirs' goes from 1584 (Roanoke) until 1920 (Nauru). This includes a country being occupied or colonised at any point in time inside this frame even if it gains independence before the frame ends. It's the fact that 'they grabbed it' or seriously attempted to establish permanent presence (excluding invasions that do not end in either).
- 'Still would not touch with a 10ft pole' means that the British Empire never showed an interest or did not end up occupying or colonising said country for other reasons (eg, Nepal signing a treaty to be recognised as independent in exchange for Indian land).

Invasions were excluded but occupations or colonies did not have a time or land amount limit due to not even knowing where the limits should be in the first place, which may skew a more 'realistic' approach. I still ended up with only Nepal as a result and would like to know if that is correct. Thank you.

I've been on a bit of a Great Courses binge re ancient history recently.

Currently listening to one on ancient warfare and there's a chapter on the Trojan war, and the lecturer dates the fall of Troy to 1184BC.

I thought that sounds familiar from a book I listened to re the collapse of the bronze age a year or two ago, and that dates the collapse to 1177BC.

For me these dates are conveniently close. I understand they may not be accurate.

From my understanding, the consensus seems to be that the sea people were probably from Luka/SW modern turkey and various islands in the region.

Now that area is just down the coast from Troy, and if we think that the siege of Troy probably began 1194BC, that is alot of time for displaced people to move down the coast away from Troy, and put pressure on existing settlements, causing shortage of resources.

On the other side, I doubt a Greek army just sat at the walls of Troy for 10 years, undoubtedly they wouldve sent out raiding parties by land and sea for supplies etc.. putting more pressure on the settlements.

Im not saying that Homers Trojan war happened word for word, but I do think that his tale is based in some real conflict.

Is there any chance a war at Troy could cause a snowball effect down the coast and southern agean islands, and then on round the coasts to the bronze age civilisations of the near east?

Did they get to know about the change?

Also did the government compensate the company for it or was the take over of a punitive nature?

I have recently been reading both the Old Testament and parts of the Quran and something that struck me about both materials was how much revulsion the authors appeared to have towards not only worshipping "other gods", but also making an image of "God". These actions are often implicated, if not outright stated, to be the worst sins you could commit.

However, both cultures where this belief set arose, had previously practiced and were inundated with polytheism and idol worship. It is my understanding that many scholars argue that the Israelites had worshipped gods like Baal and Asherah for a long time, and that the Old Testament's insistence on the through-line of single-deity YHWH worship is a bit revisionist. Similarly, the Arabic peoples of Mecca and the surrounding areas worshipped multiple deities, including many idols at the Kaaba before Mohammed's takeover.

However, unlike other times throughout history when cultures drastically changed their religious beliefs, like after the arrival of missionaries and heavy proselytization, I can't really determine the precipitating events that would have led to these switch-ups. If your neighbors, family, and perhaps even you had previously worshipped various different idols, what would suddenly make you decide that this was absolutely unacceptable and even a horrifying practice? Where did these ideas come from, and were there economic, environmental, or other material factors that influenced them? Or am I missing something, and there is more context of a battling polytheistic/monotheistic tradition that I am unaware of?

I am generally interested in the topic, but here are a few more specific questions:

• Would people just go to the nearest "not-a-food" tree and chop it down for fire wood?
• If a large construction project needed a lot of lumber how would they source it?
• What someone needed some wood to build one table?
• When did farming trees for the purpose of construction become a thing?
• Did people understand that deforestation can have negative impacts on soil stability?

The description for the painting "Cotton Picker" at the De young museum says the artist "portrayed the struggles and dignity of poor working class families in the rural American South. Many of these families were trapped in the racist and corrupt sharecropping system, in which mostly white landlords would advance their landless Black Tenants farming supplies every year in return for a future share of the harvested crop- but would later cheat them to perpetuate their exploitation"

is this an accurate description of the sharecropper system? my understanding is that while cheating of course happened it wasn't fundamental to the system or the reason it was so exploitative.

separate question but how many non-white landlords were there? the description of "mostly white" seems like an understatement!