Discussion in 'World History' started by Plotinus, Sep 24, 2014.
I know the United States and the Ottoman Empire were on opposite sides during World War 1, but did they ever fight directly against each other on the battlefield? If so, can someone name any of the battles they had against each other?
Well, exactly my point. Maybe the reason work isn't carrying on has nothing to do with governmental interference and more to do with the low value of the work.
He's a somewhat dodgy character but he's not a "self-proclaimed expert", he's a genuine expert with a PhD from the University of Pennsylvania. In any case, he hasn't said anything about this case, so we can't listen to it or not. You only have the story of the Mataha people from their own pretty dodgy website. You certainly don't know whether their claims of intimidation are correct. As I say, the Mataha people don't seem to have demonstrated any academic credibility on this matter. Even if their findings are indeed being suppressed by the Egyptian government, it doesn't follow from that that their findings are of any value. If they were, they wouldn't need to resort to websites to publicise them.
I don't recall hearing of any. The US entry into the war was so late that they weren't involved everywhere. The US was still ramping up for the war when it ended. The Army and Marines were in France. The Navy in the Atlantic.
I don't think they were at war. The US was an Associated Power, not an Ally. The ostensible reason for US entry into the war, unrestricted submarine warfare, was nothing to do with the Ottomans. Likewise, the Ottomans already had their hands full losing to the British Empire.
When William the Conqueror died I believe he left Normandy and other French holdings to his oldest son and England to a younger son. Was William slighting his older son, or did he just want to split his territories among his sons?
Gavelkind was the concept that you split up your land amongst your sons and is one of the main reasons that Charlemagne's empire crumbled after his death. I believe that William the Conqueror saw the Duchy of Normandy as more prestigious than his English holdings, hence he left his primary title to his eldest son and so on.
No - he considered Normandy and other French holdings as more valuable than England.
I think they did declare war on the Ottomans, though, and were offered a mandate in Armenia after the war, so it's possible. I agree it was unlikely, though.
Did they have any involvement in the Pacific?
I'm confused though. Wikipedia says William wanted to disinherit his oldest son completely and giving him Normandy was a compromise. Is it wrong, or was William unable disinherit him?
I doubt that he had total control over the issue, especially given the many attempts on his life when he was younger and the fractious nature of his barons.
Why did Charlemagne fail to conquer the Iberian Muslims?
What do you think about "The Arctic Home in the Vedas" theory?:
The Vedas and the Avesta of course contain founding myths of the Aryans. Those myths were obviously much, much older than times when they were written down on paper. Before that, they had been transmitted orally from one generation to another - like in all illiterate cultures. However, we should not a priori ridicule such oral traditions, and we should not consider them as totally unreliable. There often is a grain of truth in such myths.
For example, Maori founding myths saying that their ancestors "came in 7 great boats" turned out to be - more or less - true:
In this case genealogical evidence from ancient DNA extracted from bones indeed seems to be linking the lineage of a hunter who lived around 7,500 years ago in Karelia (see the graph below), with the current predominant Y-DNA haplogroup in Northern India and Central India:
Large version (link): http://s7.postimg.org/6gf8nevmx/PIE_Tree.png
Of course the "North Pole" as an exact location must be dismissed... but Karelia is reasonably close, and indeed sub-Arctic:
Map showing areas with sub-Arctic climate (which include Karelia):
"The Baltic Origins of Homer's Epic Tales":
And the Seima-Turbino phenomenon:
PIE homeland near Proto-Uralic homeland:
Finally, Nostratic languages:
The closest relative of PIE was apparently Proto-Uralic, followed by Proto-Altaic and Kartvelian (the latter spoken in Caucasus region). This shows that PIE homeland was most likely somewhere between the Ural Mountains, the Baltic Sea and the Caucasus.
Because he didn't have Polish Winged Hussars.
Well, Hussars aren't the reason Poland are STRONK. And the Germans with their pretty sweet UA should have been able to amass enough of an army from torching barbarians to overwhelm those weakling moors.
On a more serious note, I think everybody seems to underestimate the military strength of the Moors. Also, Charlemagne was facing rebelliousness within his own possessions so he couldn't commit to warring with the Moors. Another thing to consider is that Charlemagne didn't necessarily want to conquer the Moors- he just wanted to eliminate them as a threat ad while he couldn't completely do that, he at least managed to form a buffer state- the Spanish march.
Well, had they not disintegrated it is unlikely that the Christian states of the Peninsula would have gotten strong enough to defeat them when they unified again.
Having watched the films "The Ten Commandments" and the more recent "Exodus: God and Kings", I was led to believe that the Exodus was an actual event (frogs, plagues, locusts, etc. excluded). However, in reading Wikipedia: The Exodus, no archaeological evidence has been found c.a. 1250 BCE. Does this effectively place the entire Old Testament's historicity into question?
It places the OT into the exact same category that all other 'historical' documents from that time period go into. They are useful for giving us an understanding of what the writers thought and, when corroborated with other information, can be useful as a historical record.
It pretty much is entirely in question. We know there was no Noah's flood. We know there was no Adam and Eve some 6000 years ago. Why should the Exodus story be any different?
Separate names with a comma.