texts: What is the mark next to the hallmark on this silver object?

texts:
I got an object which is either made of silver or silver-plated (as far as I can see), and while studying the hallmark I noticed another mark close to the hallmark.

At first I thought it was nothing special or simply minor damage, but then I found the same mark on the other side and now I'm wondering whether it can tell me something about the object and if so, what?

The object is a French carnet de bal hallmarked with P revolver Q which according to this site is Quitte and Prudent - registered in 1882.

EDIT A carnet de bal is, freely translated in today's slang, a party notebook. A young demoiselle would take it with her to a ball and note with whom she danced which dance.

The carnet is around 5x3 cm big.

This is the object (front and backside), and I circled the positions of the marks. (click to enlarge)

These 2 pictures show the hallmarks and the mark in question:


texts: Was race really unimportant in the 1660's?

texts:
There's this quote by Lerone Bennett Jr. where he said:

  Back there [in the 1660s], before Jim Crow, before the invention of the Negro or the white man or the words and concepts to describe them, the Colonial population consisted largely of a great mass of white and black bondsmen, who occupied roughly the same economic category and were treated with equal contempt by the lords of the plantations and legislatures. Curiously unconcerned about their color, these people worked together and relaxed together.

With the state of things these days it's really hard to believe that race was something that people were "unconcerned" about. The quote is specifically talking about Colonial America but it would make sense that if things were like this there, then it wouldn't be too awfully dissimilar in other parts of the world.

Is there truth to what Lerone Bennett Jr. said, did race really used to be a non-consequential thing?


texts:
Marcus Aurelius, a philosopher king, took steps toward free speech (wiki):

  The emperors permitted free speech, evidenced by the fact that the comedy writer Marullus was able to criticize them without suffering retribution. At any other time, under any other emperor, he would have been executed.

At the same time he is considered partly responsible for an increase in the persecution of Christians, indicating that he had his reservations as to what could be said after all.

What is known about what was actually proposed or enforced as policies in regard to free speech during his reign? Note that I am not primarily interested in his own beliefs, but more interested in what the actual conditions were in Rome at that time and how they differed from the limitations on free speech by other emperors.


texts: Why did German troops perform this parade near Szászház, in September 1916?

texts:
I'm reading "Last Night of Love, First night of War" by Camil Petrescu. In the book, the author says that when the Germans fought against Romanians in front of Szászház village, before the fight, the German forces displayed their troops somehow like this:

Since the Romanian troops where at "300-400 meters" from some hill(being under the rule that outposts can't shoot unless being shot at), it is described by the author that the German troops displayed some kind of parade on the hill in front of the enemy troops.

First, one man would show up(from over the hill I think), look at the Romanian troops, "go down the hill like 30 steps" then going again on the other side of the hill. Then two would come and do the same, then 4, and so on to a number somewhere around 300 when I understand they stopped doing the moving thing and at some point after they engaged in the battle with bombshells.

It's not a history book(so maybe this information is wrong), but in the footer of the page there's an author's note saying he never understood why the whole "parade" thing happened. And gives the details in the title in case someone could explain it to him.

I did some research but I couldn't seem to find the explanation to this(I also do not know much history though indeed). Does anyone know anything about this?


texts: How would a WW1 pilot signal a request to surrender in-flight?

texts:
The white flag is the classic sign of requesting surrender, ceasefire or parlay in military contexts, yet it is unfortunately rather unwieldy to take with one on a fighter patrol, or use during one.

Conditions on the sky would often make winning the engagement or disengaging impossible. Onboard radios were only coming in slowly and using one would require knowing the opponent's frequency --- as well as an opponent who had a radio, too!

This answer in Aviation.SE suggests there's no universal signal for surrender. Was there a widely used signal in use during WWI? If not, what were the common ways of indicating surrender during that period?


texts: Is there a painting from before the colonization of the Americas depicting travelers from far away visiting European nobles?

texts:
Is there a painting from before the colonization of the Americas depicting European nobles being entertained or given gifts by travelers from far away places, such as sub-saharan Africa or India?

I'm talking about a European visiting such a distant place, then returning with some items from there, and then visiting European nobility to entertain them with stories - and that visit being painted.


texts: What adaptations allowed left-handers to write left-to-right with dip pens?

texts:
Most people touch the side of their hand to the page as they write with a pen or pencil. Latin is written from left to right, and culturally its heritage somewhat demonizes left-handers ("sinister"). Left-handers also have difficulty writing LTR with wet ink, because their hand smears the ink as it crosses the page. (I bet this once made for a lot of enthusiastic left-handed European students of Arabic and Hebrew.)

Two apparent remedies are writing without touching the page at all, and learning to write with the nondominant hand. At least for me, both of these are quite challenging. (Two more modern adaptions are the ballpoint pen, whose ink dries rapidly, and pencils, whose deposit is not wet.)

What tools or techniques existed in the brush, reed, quill or fountain pen eras to allow left-handers to write LTR text, or vice-versa? Similarly, how did Greeks with reed pens manage to scribe a boustrophedonic text, which alternates between directions?


texts: Would Wright's attack on Cemetery Ridge have succeeded if Posey had covered Wright's Left Flank?

texts: On the Second Day of the Battle of Gettysburg, the Third Confederate Brigade under Brig. Gen. Ambrose Wright (serving under Anderson's Division) charged from Seminary Ridge into Union forces holding Cemetery Ridge, overrunning two batteries of Union guns and nearly capturing Meade's headquarters.  My great great grandfather was a lieutenant in the 48th Georgia Infantry which fought on Wright's left flank.  To their left was Brig. Carnot Posey's brigade of Mississippians who, except for elements of a few companies, did not advance onto the ridge to protect Wright's left flank.  The Georgian's hollared, "Come on you Mississippians," but they wouldn't budge because Posey had given no orders to.  After the Battle, Anderson took the blame for not giving Posey adequate discretion, but the question is, what would have happened if Posey had joined the battle?  Reportedly, Wright's forces went further than Pickett's "high water mark" on Day 3 of the battle, but was forced to retreat when the 48th and other units took heavy casualties (my ancestor was wounded).  Have any military experts studied this to see whether Posey's forced might have won the entire battle for the South on Day 2?


texts: What did medical treatments for fractured or broken bones cost in 1900-1915?

texts:
Let's say that you are in the year 1915, living in rural Eastern Europe, and you just got badly injured in an earthquake (not a huge earthquake, just big enough to crumble a small and poorly built barn on top of you).
For the sake of clarity, I will narrow it down to one injury: Fractured or broken bones. Of course, you could suffer many other possible injuries from an earthquake, but I want to make my question crystal clear. Broken bones are nothing too life-threatening nowadays but probably fairly concerning or possibly life-changing back then.
Could stuff like that be treated without a hospital by someone with past experience in the medical field? If possible, how could it be treated and what would be a good estimate of the cost for the treatment?
We are assuming you have a middle-class amount of money, and you have around 4-6 months to recover.
Would it be possible and/or affordable?


texts: What alloy was used in early steam turbines? (1900 - 1930)

texts:
Steam turbines use externally created steam to drive the blades. There's no internal combustion. They've been used in marine propulsion since at least 1894 on the Turbinia. After this, Parsons-type steam turbines became more and more popular on navies.

I want to know what the blade alloy was, back then. A decent blade alloy is crucial, or the turbine will melt or creep or corrode too quickly.

This is important to trace the similar technology of turbojets developed in WW2. I want to see if the alloys of those early jet engines are similar to the marine steam turbines.

I did google around for this, but was disappointed. Wikipedia has an entire article on steam turbines, with very little on blade alloy. It had a few small paragraphs describing Ni-Al-Ti alloys (without mentioning ratios), and also protective coatings, without specifying any time-frame. Usually that means it's a modern context, and the citation dates seem to support that.

Another thing I found was this Wikisource Article. The only time it mentioned blade alloy was a 1888 turbine from Sweden, "a paddle wheel made of the strongest steel". Hardly a scientific description. What was the strongest steel in 1888? What % of carbon was it? There's only a 1% difference of carbon between wrought iron and steel. Besides, this doesn't appear to be the parsons-type turbine that became so popular on navies about a decade later. And there is no other mention of blade alloy in the article.


texts: Was the wall of the Second Temple part of the fortification of Jerusalem?

texts:
In the Israel Museum, Jerusalem, there is a 1:50 model of Jerusalem from the Roman period (Holyland Model of Jerusalem). There it shows that the Temple was at the edge of the city and seemingly one section of its walls was actually part of the outer walls of the city.

Was it really so? And if yes then did they fight from there, like against the Romans when they besieged Jerusalem?


texts: How far did climate affect civilisation development in the Americas?

texts:
The shapes and orientations of Eurasia and Africa result in the former having larger regions of similar climate. This video discusses the hypothesis that:

regions of similar climate can more readily form cultures with a common language and leadership;
this impaired the expansion of African empires;
it also partially explains the different levels of socioeconomic and political success in post-colonial African nations, with more of such success going to nations that either had little climate variation or found a cultural way to manage around this.

Putting aside the various issues with such a hypothesis for the moment, my main concern is the lack of a discussion of the Americas and Australasia. Given the latter's unusual population density distribution, I'll focus on the Americas for the following questions.

In theory, the Americas would face similar climate changes to Africa. Does the history of native empires reflect this?
Like Africa, the Americas have been carved anew in recent centuries by colonialism and nations becoming independent. Did the outcomes for such nations reflect the extent to which their climates varied?


texts: Why did the Eastern U.S. population decrease so much during WWII?

texts:
I was looking at this graph of the United States' population over time and noticed the dip in population for many Eastern states that starts around 1939 and ends in July of 1945.

Obviously this corresponds to the start and end of WWII, but with the U.S. WWII death toll sitting at around 420,000 I don't think it accounts for the drastic dip in so many states at the time. New York alone lost over 1 million people between 1939 and 1945. Were drafted U.S. soldiers the cause of the dip?

There also seems to be a corresponding increase in California's population during the same time period. Was there an exodus to California at the time?

What was the cause of this dramatic population shift?


texts: In which year of the post-WWII Occupation of Japan was the Imperial Rescript on Education repealed?

texts:
The 1890 Imperial Rescript on Education was repealed during the Allied Occupation of Japan led by Douglas MacArthur, but I cannot find an exact date for this, or even in which year it happened.

I am preparing a chronology for an academic conference, so I need to place the repeal under the correct year. Any help would be most appreciated.


texts:
Is there an online tool that allows one to create a historical map given a time period and region/country of interest? I have found this question, What are good online sources for historical maps?, but it only provided links to static maps. There is also a list of online mapping tools here, but the links I have followed either yield quite recent maps or require the input of a lot of data with coordinates, which I don't have.

Example of what (ideally) I wanted to have - a map that shows 'mainland' Greece, Caria, Ionia and Persia in cr. 500-300 BC.

Note: This question is distinct from other similar questions; see discussion on meta.


texts: Why was no Nobel Prize for Literature awarded in 1935?

texts:
The Swedish Academy has just announced that as a result of recent scandals and associated resignations within the Academy, no prize for Literature will be awarded for 2018.

I am curious about this part of the article:

  The honour has not been awarded on seven occasions since its launch in
  1901, although previously never over a scandal. The prize was missed
  in 1914, 1918, 1940, 1941, 1942 and 1943, during the first and second
  world wars, and in 1935 for reasons never disclosed.

(emphasis mine)

It is certainly true that no prize was awarded in 1935, but even if no official reason was given, do any sources from the time offer any insight into possible reasons why this occurred?


texts: What is the statue in the music video for "Sick Boy"?

texts: Recently I viewed the music video for the song "Sick Boy" by the Chainsmokers. Does anyone know who is the statue featured in the video of? I just can't find any information on this although I assume it's an ancient Roman or Greek figure.


texts: Why was Switzerland not attacked during the two World Wars?

texts:
Why in WW1 or WW2 or ever nobody invaded Switzerland? All other countries was in some wars. How Switzerland do it and should we learn from them?

I hear that many people with power have money in swiss banks, is that factor or not?


texts: Have there been government conspiracies that were successful for over 25 years?

texts:
I admit it, I'm highly skeptical of conspiracies like the 9/11 Truthers, Flat Earthers, etc...

The way I see it?  "these things always come out in the end, see for example the Gulf of Tonkin incident, or Hitler's various false flag operations that fooled no one.  So conspiracies don't work and a worldview based on their generalized, or at least frequent, existence is problematic."

Edit:  Please note that this is asking about cases that successfully deceived the public for more than 25 years.  A number of suggestions were made that would qualify, except that the mess blew up before 25 years were up.  So, by definition, nothing that happened before 1994 is in scope as of 2019.  And even if it predated 1994, there is the criteria that exposure took at least 25 years.

There is a big flaw in my reasoning.  If you discount conspiracy theories just based on the ones you know of that did not work, that doesn't account for the ones that did because no one found out.  And if they worked  because no one knew of them so they can't be used to prove that conspiracies do exist and do affect our governments.

So, what are some known examples of conspiracies that worked from the point of view of the perpetrators?

Needs to involve a nation state, possibly in collusion with a commercial entity.  Not just a commercial entity:  one knows not to expect honesty from tobacco companies for example.
It needs to have affected national policy and a large number of people, preferably negatively, in that state.  I.e. shady deals to secure oil fields in a far away land isn't necessarily something that voters have historically cared much about.
However, starting a war between your country and a foreign state under false pretenses certainly counts.
The people being fooled, citizens of that state, would need to have felt strongly negative if they had found out.  i.e. no "harmless little white lies at election time".  Again, that brings in a notion of active harm to the citizens at large.
The conspiracy needs to be secret, have fooled, or at least been disbelieved, by the general public.  Going back to tobacco companies, no one really believed their lies.  And that also rules out the Gulf of Tonkin as it has always been strongly disputed.  Global warming is also out as whatever side a government takes, either "wrongly disbelieving it" or "acting too strongly on unwarranted assumptions", the public is already well aware this a major policy issue.
The state in question needs to be, or at least pretend to be, a democracy with a free press.  It's all to easy to come up with cover ups in totalitarian states.  And if there's no press, it's not obvious how people would hear of the misdeeds.

How do we judge success?:

The perpetrators need to have benefited from it.  But since we need to know about it, I'll arbitrarily say that, if the facts only came out after a generation (25 years), then the con was successful as the people doing it have likely retired and/or statute of limitations have kicked in.

Note that this 25 year limit also aims this question at historical events, rather than current events where the facts are still up for debate.

And, it needs to be now generally accepted by historians that it was actually a cover up/conspiracy.

Feel free to edit and/or ask clarifications.  I tried to frame it to include only the typologies found in some of the big common conspiracy theories involving governments found nowadays like inside job 9/11, Flat Earth, faked moon landings, vaccine scares, etc...  I specifically want to rule out things like say a car company for example successfully covering up exploding gas tanks on its own - a government needs to be in the lead.  Ditto government positions that were not in the best interests of its citizens but were already widely known at the time - secrecy is key in a conspiracy.  While certainly negative, things like the Hanford nuclear plant's release of radioactive material isn't really what I have in mind as it's not an attempt to affect national policy.


texts: Why are the buildings built in classical style in the first half of the 19th century in Russia so frequently yellow-and-white - coloured?

texts:
So many buildings built in neo-classical style in cr. 1800-1850 in Russian empire are yellow (always the same shade of yellow) with white columns. There are some exceptions, e.g. grey or blue of beige with white columns, but maybe 90-95% of buildings built in this style are yellow and white, like on the first picture.

Was this colour scheme specific to Russian Empire or was it used elsewhere?

Why was it used in the first place? Antique buildings were all white when discovered, and originally they were brightly coloured (see the example of Parthenon below), I am not aware of such pastel-with-white-details colour scheme used in the antique world (was it?)


texts: What does it mean: "French was a lingua franca in the Ottoman caliphal court?"

texts:
According to the Economist: The Ottoman caliphate: Straddling two worlds

  Ruling from Istanbul, the caliphs kept polyglot courts, reflecting the
  multiple religions and races represented there. French was a lingua
  franca at the Ottoman court; Persian, Armenian and Arabic were also
  spoken.

I'm interested in French as a lingua franca.

When exactly did French start having this status? And what does it exactly mean? Was it the main language of the court, or was it only spoken by foreigners who couldn't speak Turkish? The quoted passage also says that Persian, Armenian and Arabic were "also spoken", but does say that they were "lingua franca", does it mean that French have preferred status over other languages?


texts: Military training in the Hijaz during early Islamic era

texts:
The expansion of the Islamic rule during early Islamic era was quite impressive. Before 629, Muhammad's rule was limited to one city Medina. 15 years later, at the end of Umar's rule, the Caliphate more or less conquered the whole Persian Empire, and took over most of the Byzantium except probably Anatolia and Greece.

Perhaps there are many possible factors for this, including leadership, zeal, unity, the exhausting of the Persian and Byzantine empires, or some people would claim divine intervention.

But my question is more about the Muslim military manpower at that time. What kind of military training was available for the Hijaz (or Arabian) population at that time? Did they have compulsory training in combat, tactics, etc? I imagine, as powerful and mature empires during that time, Persia and Byzantium must have an advanced military knowledge and training for its armies. How about the Muslims?


texts: Why did this post card not allow communication with Japan?

texts:
In this postcard posted in Canterbury on 21 July 1908 (I assume) it is marked that:

  This space may be used for communication for Inland Postage and Foreign Countries, except Japan.

Why?


texts: Is there any support within the scholarly community for Cyrus Gordon's "Common Background of Greek and Hebrew Civilizations"?

texts:
In "The Common Background of Greek and Hebrew Civilizations" (1965), scholar Cyrus Gordon argued for a common cultural origin for the Greek and Hebrew peoples. Specifically, he argued that both pre-Monarchic Israelite and Mycenaean Greek (i.e. Homeric or "heroic" Greek) cultures sprang from the same cultural matrix.

Is there any support for this view within the present scholarly/academic community?


texts: What is the science behind lead not contributing to the fall of Rome?

texts:
Did lead poisoning contribute to the fall of Rome? skeptics stack exchange

I actually have had a couple professors in my time comment on how Roman leaders may have had lead poisoning which caused them to make wild or irrational decisions, but overall it doesn't seem the population succumbed to lead poisoning to the extent it lead to Rome's fall in any way.

But, if the Romans used lead so much, like in their pipes or even in their food, why didn't they suffer more from lead poisoning to an extreme extent?


texts:
You can learn and understand history various ways such as learning in a university, reading books, being taught by someone with a background in history, watching TV, browsing the internet, or, in my case, (and my question) from games.

How can I be sure that the source that I am learning history from is the correct source? Maybe (or most of the time) this source is hiding information or neglecting it. I didn't study history at a university, but at first TV, such as National Geographic, and later games were my sources of collecting information. When I was a kid, I played a game called Age of Empires. It was the first game that gave me some info about history, such as the different eras and some knowledge about civilizations. Other games, like Call of Duty or other shooter games, talk about history as well. However, there is a game called Civilisation that is really really into history and goes into various detailed things about every civilization. However, I discovered that games in general gives you specific information in order to achieve the game purpose. For example, Call of Duty in some series points out how the Nazis were bad and Hitler should be killed. In Civilization, there is information abut civilizations that are missing and there are questions about why they specified such people.

My question: the source we are collecting information from most of the time is hiding information or showing incorrect info. Especially to an amateur like me who likes history, how can we avoid such things?


texts: Are there records of soldiers opinions of canned food in WWI?

texts:
While reading the Wikipedia article on canning, I came across the following statement (with no citation).

Throughout the war, British soldiers generally subsisted on low-quality canned foodstuffs, such as the British "Bully Beef" (cheap corned beef), pork and beans, canned sausages, and Maconochies Irish Stew, but by 1916, widespread dissatisfaction and increasing complaints about the poor quality canned food amongst soldiers resulted in militaries seeking better-quality food to improve morale, and complete meals-in-a-can began to appear.

They were eating canned food, and it seems it was exceptionally bad. Are there records of soldiers exact opinions of this food? Also, the leaders of the time probably also would have discussed the food the soldiers were eating and their own opinions of this. Are there records of this? Or can someone point me to a good source regarding food quality for soldiers in WW1?


texts: What possible uniform with decoration is my ancestor from New South Wales in the early 1900's wearing?

texts:
I have found the below picture of my ancestor. It was taken approximately in the early 1900's in New South Wales, Australia.

I don't think he was knighted. I have found a census record that he was a dispatch clerk though. I didn't think the attire would be so complicated for that. Perhaps he was promoted.

What is he wearing?


texts: What evidence supports the claim that Shivaji's father was Muslim?

texts:
Professor James Laine wrote a biography of an Indian historical figure named Shivaji. The book was outlawed for a number of years but later the Supreme Court of India unbanned it. There are various claims floating around on the Internet that Shivaji was born out of wedlock to a Pathan Muslim (like Afzal Khan). Also, Sahaji, the popularly recognized father of Shivaji, was the follower of a famous Muslim saint.

Does Laine's biography claim that Shivaji's father was Muslim? What evidence supports this  claim?


texts: What is the minimum safe speed when dropping depth charges?

texts:
What is the minimum safe speed when dropping depth charges - especially if they are set for shallow depth ?

I wonder if a slow merchant man really can use depth charges in a safe manner i.e. without risking a fair damage to itself.

The wikipedia article abouth depth charges says (for WW I):
deeper than 30m and with speeds larger than 10kn.

With regards to SS Medoc :
is the effect of the triple expansion engine (only 155 hp) really plausible ? I ask because the machine i happen to have to take care of has 250 hp and that it is a much smaller ship and we with that power only does 11 knots or so.

wrecksite.eu on the Medoc gives a number of 9 knots for SS Medoc so i think droping deep charges behind you which detonates to early is more dangerous for the ship than the sub...


texts: When the term "president" was used the first time?

texts:
Wikipedia mentions that the term was used in Oxford and Cambridge universities at least in 1464.

But I wonder whether the title was used somewhere before. Was is used under Ancient Rome?


texts: Was Textile Armour More Effective at Stopping Arrows than Mail?

texts:
You hear accounts of guys trundling around with a dozen arrows sticking out of their padded armour, looking like pin cushions. This has lead to the belief padded cloth armours could stop arrows surprisingly well, and may've been more efficient in doing so than mail. Is this true?

One point to be considered, is often that heavy padding may have had mail in it. And that may've been the major arrow stopping factors. I have seen some tests on mail vs gambesons with arrows, but I can't remember a definitive example that shows the efficiency of one over the other.

So, could someone please tell me? Was padded armour more efficient at stopping arrows than mail?


texts: Who are the people on the cover of James Joll's Europe since 1870?

texts:
I see Hitler, Churchill, Marx, Queen Victoria, a well-known photograph of a newsboy after France, England, New Zealand and Australia declared war on Germany on 3 Sept. 1939.

That's as far as I get...


texts:
Peter Ackroyd writes on page 88 of his account of the English Civil War:

  Cobblers were well known for their radical Protestant sympathies.

What was so special about cobblers?


texts: Why didn't Russia seize California when it could?

texts:
Spanish colonies in the Californias, created in part to forestall Russian expansion, were militarily weak. The military had only a few hundred men in the whole territory, and no ships at all. It was easily outgunned by the two insurgent ships that sacked and burned the capital, Monterey, in 1818. Spain had always had too much going on to invest in developing California.

Enter Russia. It had been expanding eastwards by conquering local societies as it went. Once the empire reached the Pacific Ocean, the Russian-American Company was formally permitted to settle Alaska. It established colonies there, which were perennially short of food, contributing to their eventual sale to the United States. Spanish officials took fright and monitored Russian encroachment, but were unable or unwilling to oppose the installation of Russia's outpost Fort Ross.

After the Napoleonic Wars ended, Russia sponsored several dozen long-range voyages. Officials of the Imperial Navy on round-the-world trips and Russian-American Company ships from Sitka both made contacts throughout California. Several of the Russian visitors who wrote up their experiences noticed the province's inadequate defenses; some, especially Dmitry Zavalishin, suggested that Russia should acquire California.

The Russian-American Company could not have sponsored an invasion nor a settlement of California, but the Imperial Russian Navy could have. This acquisition could have solved the problem of provisionment to the Russian Pacific rim and dramatically expanded Russia's sphere of influence. Spain would not have found out for many months, and would have had trouble retaliating since three viceroyalties were in revolution at once, including the one from which any reinforcements for California would have to be sent. For all its vaunted navy could do, Spain was about to lose nearly all its colonies; Russia was not. Independent Mexico wasn't about to be able to defend California either; there wasn't much of a fight when the United States sent a few ships to take over.

Aware of Zavalishin's advocacy, and already possessing one outpost in the area, Tsars Alexander I and Nicholas I could have taken California for Russia between approximately 1815-1845. Why didn't they?


texts: Was there a revised English version of General Order 1 re: the division of Korea?

texts:
I stumbled upon this document (in Russian, use Google Translate). It seems to be a translation of the beginning of General Order No. 1 (Wikipedia, Wikisource).

I noticed 2 peculiar differences in paragraph 1b:

Wikisource version does not mention Kuril Islands at all, Russian document mentions them in paragraph 1b.
Wikisource version gives division line in Korea as parallel 38° North, in Russian document it’s 38°50’ (hence more land for Americans; about 90 km further North).

I searched this site doc20vek.ru and found two related documents:

Letter from Stalin to Truman, where Stalin acknowledges he received the text of the order, asks to add Kuril Islands to Soviet zone, and also asks for an occupation zone in Northern half of Hokkaido.
Response from Truman to Stalin, where he agrees to Kuril Islands, declines the Hokkaido zone and also asks for an American air base in central Kuril Islands.

From this I assume that the order was revised, with Kuril Islands added to paragraph 1b. However, none of the letters mention Korea.

It’s generally known that, between WW2 and Korean War, Korea was divided along 38°00’ parallel, and Soviets received whole Kuril Islands.

So my questions are:

Whether a revised English version of General Order No. 1, mentioning Kuril Islands, exists, and, if yes,
Which parallel does it set for division of Korea?


texts: Does written language change language more than oral tradition?

texts:
I'm not sure if this is a right forum, but I didn't find better from SE.

I wonder if it is researched how much development of writing systems affects to language compared to languages that are not written, or writing system otherwise developed very late in history?

Could you assume that languages which are solely orally been alive, have kept their vocabulary and structure / grammatics better than those with written? Or is it opposite instead?

I came to this question by reading a book "THE SILENT LANGUAGE" by Edward T. Hall who stated that:

  It follows that writing is a symbolization of a symbolization

which suggests that certainly there must be a lot of influence to the language, when people started to write it. Similarly like recursion that adds something to the stack after each iteration.


texts: When was bicycle ridership highest in North America?

texts:
Bike commuting share in the United States is currently less than 1%; but in some cities (college towns, really) it is 10% or higher (source).

Is there a time in US history when bicycle ridership was more prevalent than now? What is the evidence to demonstrate that bicycle ridership was high?


texts: How was the initial allocation of the US House of Representatives decided?

texts:
Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the US Constitution:

and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

How was this allocation selected?  The allocation is ordered roughly by size of state (with the exception of Maryland/North Carolina, a state with more people has more Representatives), but some of the numbers were way off.  After the 1790 census, North Carolina, Massachusetts, New York, and Virginia all nearly doubled the size of their delegations to the House.  Was it based on actual population estimates, or was it simply negotiated?


texts:
I'm reading about Sodom and Gomorrah on wiki when I come across this:
"One such idea is that the Dead Sea was devastated by an earthquake between 2100 and 1900 BCE. This might have unleashed showers of steaming tar."

What is a "tar shower?"  Are there any documented cases of this?  When I googled this, it went to the visual dictionary referenced in the Wikipedia article, which didn't explain the concept either.


texts: What's the significance of "cat, hare, and ale" in this quotation?

texts:
From Alice Morse Earle's Colonial Days in Old New York (1896):

In Albany in 1677 all "Shrovetide misdemeanors were prohibited, viz.: riding at a goose, cat, hare, and ale." The fine was twenty-five guilders in sea-want. What the cat, hare, and ale part of the sport was, I do not know.

From the Annals of Albany, Vol. 1 (1850, reprinted 1869), in the section "Reformed Protestant Dutch Church in Albany," I think we have the source of Earle's information:

Feb., 1677. Proclamation was made prohibiting all misdemeanors which have often occurred here on Shrove Tuesday, viz,: riding at a goose, cat, hare and ale, &c., on a penalty of ƒ25 seawan.....Order of the court to prevent and punish severely the shameful violation of the sabbath especially committed by the inhabitants of Kinderhook, and the appointment or Jochem Lambertse deputy sheriff strictly to attend to it.

My question is simply: Can History StackExchange answer the question that Earle couldn't? What is the significance of "cat, hare, and ale, etc." in the context of Shrovetide entertainments?
My best guess is that it was supposed to parse as "riding at a (goose, cat, hare...) and (ale, etc.)," but I have no evidence that "riding at a cat" or "riding at a hare" was ever a thing.

UPDATE: I'm restoring the [alcohol] tag to this question, as I first ran across the Earle quotation in John Hull Brown's Early American Beverages (1966). Earle may have been totally mistaken in assuming that "cat, hare, and ale" was supposed to be parsed as a set phrase, which then "tricked" Brown into thinking it was relevant to his subject; but on the other hand, it's the "and ale" part that makes the quotation puzzling at all! If the proclamation had referred simply to

...misdemeanors which have often occurred here on Shrove Tuesday, viz,: riding at a goose, cat, hare, &c., on a penalty of...

then the meaning would have been totally obvious. "And ale" specifically is what's throwing me.


texts: Why did the Soviet Union get 3 seats in the UN?

texts: Even before the fall of the Soviet Union, Ukraine and Belarus (which were then officially part of the Soviet Union) had independent seats at the United Nations. Why didn't the US or the UK get the same privilege?


texts: Founding Fathers and the American Civil War

texts:
I was reading an article and was wondering if there is anything out there to indicate that the Founding Fathers saw the potential for conflict regarding these specific points:

  Economic and social differences between the North and the South.
  States versus federal rights.

Is there any evidence to indicate that during and after the Revolutionary War (the time frame during which the United States was being formed into its own country), some of the Founding Fathers saw the potential for future conflicts that might lead to national dispute?

Is there any evidence that would suggest certain Founding Fathers warned that such issues could lead to a Civil War?

Is there any evidence to suggest that any were aware that such a dispute had a high chance of happening, but decided to forge ahead with the confidence that the newly formed government could resolve such issues over time?


texts: What are the oldest primary sources of recorded history in China?

texts:
There is for instance Sima Qian, according to Wikipedia the first Chinese historian, who wrote the Shiji (Records of the Grand Historian) in 109 BCE.

But does this primary source still exist, or do historians have only access to copies of it?

More generally: What are the oldest primary sources of recorded history in China, still available?


texts: What do we know about the !Kung "major gatherings" (up to 200 peoples)?

texts:
All the information I found seems to point to this little paragraph from Lee book{1}:

Occasionally the Ju/ ′hoansi had major gatherings, usually in winter,
when up to 200 people from eight or more camps would get together for
a few weeks. [...] Old people described the excitement of these
events, when dances involving 100 participants would go on for two
nights and a day.

What does the "had" mean: last year, 30 years ago, or longer? Was it a kind of once-in-a-lifetime event or were these events regular? If so, how often?
Did any anthropologists go to these major gatherings, or did they just hear about them?
Did any other field workers (from Marshal or Lee's generation) talk about them?
{1: Lee, R. B. (1984). The Dobe! Kung. New York; Montreal: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.}


texts: Is there any evidence Chairman Mao restricted or confiscated guns?

texts: It's often said that Chairman Mao removed the guns from the peasantry that he armed. Is this substantiated in any reliable source?


texts: Why is the United States the only developed country whose labour laws leave most up to the employer?

texts:
I read this post: "Bad Facts About The USA".

It says that the United States, Lesotho, Swaziland and New Guinea are the only countries in the world not to mandate paid leave for mothers of newborns. There are other labour laws, like paid vacation or paid sick days that employers don't need to pay.

I did a little research and discovered these things are true. But what does this mean in practice?

Is it normal for companies to pay these things for their employees? But if I want to pay less than possible to my employee, I can legally do it? I don't know the reality in the United States, but this makes me believe that work in a low income job in the USA might have less benefits than China. I'm trying to imagine how a job in a McDonald's restaurant is.

Have workers tried to change this? Did they try in the past or are they trying today?

What is the historical reason that the United States is today the only developed country like this?


texts: What were the trade routes between Mapungubwe and other civilizations?

texts:
As given in site South African kingdom of Mapungubwe

From about 1220 to 1300 Mapungubwe was an advanced trading centre and its inhabitants traded with Arabia, China and India through the East African harbours. They exchanged salt, cattle, fish, gold and iron, ivory, wood, freshwater snail and mussel shells, chert and ostrich eggshell beads were used for glass beads and cloth.

I am looking for more information about trade routes between Mapungubwe and other civilizations.


texts: Maximum speed of communication prior to Trans-Atlantic Cable?

texts:
It is for me hard to imagine that major events, like the end of a war, etc. could only be transmitted at the speed of a ship across of the Atlantic although we frequently read this. However, a combination of, for example, carrier pigeons and semaphores might serve to speed the results of a "binary" event. Is there any evidence of at least realistic attempts to transmit information across oceans faster than ships moved?

EDIT: I would add that ships might be involved in the semaphore process although I was thinking land-based semaphore stations. Multiple stationary ships, although it would take probably hundreds, might work. Such a scheme was proposed for navigation but afaik not implemented. By allowing ships to move in a narrow range, the number of ships could be reduced. A truly expensive approach, I realize.


texts: Diminishing powers of the Roman Catholic church in international matters

texts:
Before Enlightenment and Renaissance, Church or Pope had some powers which were almost same as what international organization may have.

for example:

  After the fall of Constantinople in 1453, Europeans had to pay very
  heavy price to the intermediary Arab traders for importing goods from
  India.
  It was in this background that the Pope, by an order called Papal Bull, authorized the two
  European States - Spain and Portugal - to explore all alternative
  water routes to India. After discoveries of new lands Pope draw a arbitrary line ,on map, from north to south, and authorized Portugal to establish her monopoly over the east and Spain over the west of this line.

So, during Enlightenment and Renaissance period which particular incidents or events were responsible for diminishing these powers from Church or Pope?


texts: Why do the horses on this vase have too many legs?

texts: Why do the horses have too many legs? They appear to have an extra set, why is this?


texts: What was the purpose of the 1991 referendum on the future of the Soviet Union?

texts:
In 1991, the Soviet Union held a referendum about its future political structure. The results of that referendum are presented in this infographic, or here.
What was the purpose of this referendum? Was this referendum about the continuation of governance by the communist party? If there such a positive response to the questions, why did the Soviet Union break up anyways?


texts: Pavel Mif by all Chinese accounts was a ruthless scheming Napoleon (the one in animal farm). Fortunate to the Chinese, Mif was later purged by Stalin. I wonder what sort of family he was from; where he was raised, etc.


texts: Do most historians consider the enlightenment belief about human reason a precondition for democracy to emerge?

texts:
A key part of enlightenment values include “daring to know”: people should be encouraged to use their reason and think for themselves, rather than submit their intellect to be guided (or misled) by the rulers or the clergy.
Thus it seems that this would be a precondition for democracy to emerge. If people are not confident enough to think for themselves (as Kant articulated), how can they possibly vote and run their own country (albeit indirectly)?
Is this a commonly accepted view by historians who study this historical period?
The most immediately relevant and accessible reference on this is Steven Pinker's popular book "Enlightenment now". It is not 100% clear whether he would agree with the question, but he does consider the set of enlightenment values as very crucial for progress in the human society.


texts: Why were so many of the earliest banks founded by cloth merchants?

texts:
I recently noticed that a lot of early banks, including Metzler and Berenberg, were founded by cloth merchants. Any idea why this particular line of trade was most conducive to setting up investment management?

I would imagine that since cloth is non-perishable, cloth merchants might least need to loan and lend money, since stockpiles are most predictably managed.


texts: What year was Hitler's final known painting created?

texts:
I am having trouble finding dates associated with his paintings.

Is it known if he continued painting while he was the Führer? If so when was the last known painting created?


texts: Why was Prince Philip given these specific titles before marrying Princess Elizabeth?

texts:
On the Wikipedia page for Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, it states:

  He married Elizabeth on 20 November 1947. Just before the wedding, he was created Baron Greenwich, Earl of Merioneth and Duke of Edinburgh.

Why was it necessary to grant him multiple titles at different levels? Wouldn't the dukedom suffice?

My guess was that Greenwich is in England, Merioneth in Wales, and Edinburgh in Scotland, but that leaves out Northern Ireland, which as far as I can tell had been a part of the UK (as Northern Ireland) since 1922, before they were married, and I can't find any information to substantiate that.


texts:
I'm trying to find/confirm two anecdotes about (I think) Cato (not sure which, Elder or Younger). They both refer to being modest in the face of one's own greatness.

The first has Cato being asked during the unveiling of a new statue, "Why is there no statue of you among these statues of great men?" His answer was to the effect that, "I'd rather be asked why there is no statue of me among the great man, than be asked why there is one."

The second sees Cato at some banquet. He chooses to sit away from the head of the table where the VIPs are, and instead to sit much further down. A friend asks him "Why are you sitting so low down; surely you'll have a seat up near the host?" Cato replies "I'd rather sit low down and then be asked to move up, that to sit high up and be asked to move down"

Can anyone shed any light on these? Are they true? Was it Cato? Most important, do you have a source for them. I can find the statue one in WikiQuote, but I trust that as far as I can kick it. And I can't find the dinner party one at all.
thanks.


texts: How did the "Standard Model" physics theory get that name?

texts:
I want to know how the Standard Model theory got such "generic" name.

(I've made this question in Physics StackExchange, but it was considered off-topic, and someone suggested to reask it here.)


texts:
From my memory the GULAG was abolished, because it was not economical. The prison guards cost much more than the inmates produced and were corrupt as a rule. Yet, for decades, we can read about the rising US prison population and measures similar to the GULAG being tried, that is, using prisoners as a source of cheap labor. Why did the US prison system not implode similarly as the GULAG system did, over the decades, due to unsustainable costs?

EDIT: Here is the quote from my memory:

  In reality, a consistent theme throughout the Gulag archives is that
  the Gulag system cost more than it produced and that it was creating a
  class of professional criminals.

From the common sense perspective, the GULAG was destroying its workforce (prisoners) and hence can be regarded as uneconomical simply because of that, but the US system is not much better, a jailed intellectual doing menial work can be viewed as a wasted resource as well. The same goes for jailed young people who cannot develop professionally as a consequence of incarceration.


texts: What would the style of wanted posters be in 1500's

texts:
In Spain, what would be the style of wanted poster (for pirates)?

Would it be like the Wild West type of a more modern poster.


texts: How large were Victorian British military forces?

texts:
I was wondering roughly how many people were members of military services in Britain during the later Victorian era, and had no luck finding any information on the subject online, apart from the following information on the Wikipedia article on the British army during the Victorian era:

  Cavalry

  The cavalry consisted of:

  3 Household Cavalry Regiments
      7 Dragoon Guard Regiments
      4 Dragoon Regiments
      4 Light Dragoon Regiments
      4 Hussar Regiments
      4 Lancer Regiments

  [...]

  Infantry

  In 1855, the infantry consisted of:

  3 Foot Guard Regiments
      3 Fusilier Regiments
      8 Light Infantry Regiments
      7 Highland Infantry Regiments
      79 Line Infantry Regiments
      2 Rifle Regiments

  [...]

Though I have no clue as to how many people were in a regiment.

How were the British military forces organised and how many people did that amount to?


texts: Why was the year 1816 so incredibly cold?

texts: In 1816, temperatures dipped so low that in North America snow fell in the middle of August and in Europe waterways remained frozen until midsummer. What was the reason for this incredible dip in temperature?


texts: What are the safeguards in the German constitution of 1949 against dictatorship?

texts:
In the constitution of 1949 Germany ensured that chancellors could not endow themselves with additional powers, eliminating the chance of a repeat of Hitler's 1933 episode.

What were these steps?


texts: What does the Aztec word "calpuleque" mean? Who does it refer to? What is its relationship with the words "calpulli", "alteptl" and "tlaotani"?


texts: Fulvia in Sallust's Catiline Conspiracy the same Fulvia as Mark Antony's wife?

texts: I found this book that said they were not the same woman, but the author didn't give any evidence: Squires, S. (Ed.). (1990). Asconius Commentaries on Five Speeches of Cicero. Bolchazy-Carducci Publishers. Page 148.


texts:
In the 1600s, the nature of the moon was a matter of debate.  Papers arguing for the modern concept of the moon were being printed, such as The Discovery of a World in the Moone, 1638.

The phrase a world in the moon referred to the idea that the moon was a solid, round body on which people could walk about, like our own earth.  Today this is completely uncontroversial, which raises my question:

In the 1600s, what was the opposing position?  If you didn't believe that there was a world in the moon, what did you believe?

For example, the authors of the text cited above argued a number of points about the moon: that it was solid, that it was opaque, that it reflected the light of the sun, and (as a separate point) that there was a world in the moon.  What did people believe about the moon before such papers convinced them otherwise?


texts: Who was the prime leader of the Maratha Confederation?

texts:
I spend lot of time figure out how the ruling-system of the Maratha Confederation works in the period 1750-1800 but it's difficult for me to figure out. I can't even find a list of the prime rulers of the confederation.

I read about the Queen Ahilyabai Holkar was the leader of Malwa. Was she just a leader of the Malwa region or did she also had power in the confederation? In the game Empire Total War she is the prime leader of Maratha Confederation but was she the prime leader in reality.

How did the confederation worked compared to other confederations? Did they had a prime ruler of the confederation and sub-rulers for the regions, like for example the Holy Roman Emperor was the prime ruler of Germany and each region in Germany had sub-rulers.


texts: How effective was Civil War-era artillery in the rain?

texts:
How did rain effect cannon of the mid-19th century? Specifically the commonly fielded types like the 12-pounder Napoleon. Could they operate effectively and reliably in heavy rainfall?

I’ve been able to find information on the effectiveness of various small arms in inclement weather, but not anything useful on the big guns.


texts: What is the layout of Ancient Egyptian pyramid shafts?

texts:
I'm investigating proposed alignments between pyramid* shafts and constellations for a video project, and for it, I need to know shaft angles and directions, the directions with respect to true North on Earth (or easily convertible).  My problem in looking into this has been that the pyramids are so steeped in new- (and old-) age pseudoscience that online resources I find are all of questionable veracity (i.e., they seem legit but then conclude that the angles are harmonic magical things therefore it was built by aliens).

Can someone point me to the answer via a reputable resource?  I would assume with all the study of the pyramids over the centuries that these things are known and agreed upon by legitimate archaeologists.

*I'm referring to the three main ones in Egypt -- Khufu, Khafre, and Menkaure.


texts: Was the acronym BIOS (computing) intentional re: the Ancient Greek βίος?

texts:
I ask because other acronyms could certainly have been chosen, but BIOS has a specific meaning in Ancient Greek, which, along with Latin, are the source languages of much of our scientific terminology.

βίος : life (Autenrieth)

See also βίος (Liddell/Scott)

This word is the root of modern words like biology.

The acronym was apparently created by Gary Kildall, and I'm wondering if he, or anyone who was working with him, has commented on this.


texts: Why didn't Deng Xiaoping de-Maoify China after Mao's death?

texts:
Deng Xiaoping was purged twice by Mao Zedong during the cultural revolution, and exiled by Mao for being too moderate and at odds with Mao's insane and genocidal actions. After the death of Joseph Stalin, Nikita Khrushchev denounced him and De-Stalinized Russia. As evil as Stalin was, Mao was arguably even more of a monster and Deng knew it and tried to bring some moderation and improvement after Mao's evil. So to my question: Why didn't Deng Xiaoping De-Maoize China after Mao's death?

In fact, the opposite occurred. Even though Deng presided over the shut-down of Madam Mao and the Gang of 4, he perpetuated Mao's personality cult and encouraged the continued hero-worship of Mao by the Chinese people. Deng, like other top communist leaders who knew Mao, knew well what a monster Mao was and that he was responsible for multiple man-made famines, large-scale atrocities, violence, torture, and all manner of human rights violations.

After Mao's death, Deng could have exposed the truth about Mao to the world, torn down his gigantic portraits, and De-Maoized China just as Khrushchev de-Stalinized the Soviet Union. But he didn't.

Why??


texts: Did Peter the Great promote rights for women? If so, how?

texts:
I read somewhere that Peter the Great wanted that women participated more actively in the society. But I can not find a reliable source to confirm this, nor why or how he did this.

I think this is why he did this: He wanted men to go to Europe for trade and for science, so if women participated more actively in the society, the men could leave home more safely.

I do not know how he did this, but I guess it has something to do with the employment of the women – they worked in a place where only women worked before as far as I know.

In short: I'd like to know if, how and why Peter took the Great care of the rights for women and made them more active participants in the society.


texts: Are there wars still going on, but officially ended? (found two)

texts:
I am curious if are there any wars still going on because of anomalies of diplomacy like the following examples:

Rome vs. Carthage, 264BC - 1985AD,
Since Carthage was destroyed, there were no official peace until Tunisia and Italy signed one.
Montenegro vs. Japan, 1904-2006,
Montenegro joined up into the conflict between Russia and Japan, but in the meantime lost it's independence and no peace was signed until Montenegro gained it's independence back.

It is fun to read the others, here is the link to the page.

I can see Costa Rica is legally still at war in the first world war with Germany because of legal issues of Costa Rica's government back in time. Second example is Italy vs Japan. In the last days of second world war, the allies' occupied Italy declared war on Japan, but never signed peace between them. Are there more?

To be precise after two answers: I am looking for examples where the peace was signed, but for some reason somebody didn't participated or it isn't valid.


texts:
Pausanias wrote his Description of Greece in the first century AD, which remains a priceless resource for classicists and archaeologists to this day.
I've made a quick perusal of the text itself, as well as some of the secondary literature. However, I've been unable to find any indication as to why Pausanias made his journeys. These are the possibilities that I've been through in my own mind:

He was a tourist - in something close to the modern sense of the term.
He was a pilgrim.
He travelled for family reasons - perhaps his motivation was similar to that behind Catullus' 'ave atque vale' poem, although the circuitous nature of his journeys seems to rule this out.
He travelled for commercial reasons.
He travelled because he was ordered to do so by the state.

Does anyone know of any data, or any interesting speculations, on this matter?


texts: How did the authorities not find the speakeasy clubs during the prohibition?

texts:
I've always been baffled and fascinated by this "prohibition" era in the USA between 1920 and 1933. That's 13 years!

I know very well about the concept of "speakeasy" clubs, that is, illegal bars. These were physical locations (obviously), allegedly available "in every corner".

How did the authorities somehow not find these? All it would take would be one pissed off customer, who gets angry at the bar keeper for any reason, such as not getting another drink on credit or something, to just go straight to the cops and tell them about the exact location. BAM! Raid. Speakeasy club shut down. Owner in jail. No more speakeasy bar on that physical location.

Yet, somehow, this didn't happen. They were apparently able to simultaneously run an illegal, physical bar in a crowded area, and have people obviously know about this since they must have customers, yet at the same time remain invisible to the cops.

This just does not add up to me. It doesn't make sense. After all, we aren't talking about some modern Tor .onion address hosted in some data center in Russia, or a sketchy mail-order business with some anonymously paid post box. We are talking about a physical, concrete location with an entrance and people standing inside it to accept orders and a stock of illegal alcohol that has to be regularly delivered there without anyone seeing it.

Even if every customer was treated like a king, and thus had no reason to "tell on them", the cops could simply go around and check every basement door in every block in the city and it'd take at most a few days (if they were very inefficient). That is, if their intention was to uphold this nation-wide law, which I assume they wanted since it existed in the first place.

Unless the authorities were actually "in on it", I basically don't even believe that such "speakeasy" clubs could have existed. Or I'm missing something critical about this world.


texts: How widely accepted are Tolstoy's views on history within the academic community?

texts:
Leo Tolstoy's War and Peace is a historic fiction and part essay in which Tolstoy regularly expresses his views on how events happen. More specifically, Tolstoy says that the actions of great men such as Napoleon are inconsequential and that great events are a result of millions of individual actions. Tolstoy criticizes the historians of his time saying that they wrong in thinking that Napoleon's actions in the 1812 campaign did not matter because the reason things happen the way they did was because of the sum will of all individual persons.

As an example, Tolstoy often says that after the Battle of Borodino, the Russian army abandoned Moscow without another battle not because General Kutuzov commanded it, but because that the spirit of the army as a whole made the Russian army abandon without a fight.

How accepted is this idea in the historic community? I guess more philosophically, how do historians in general think great events take place (via great men or as a result of how the populace wills)?


texts: Religion in present-day Colombia before Spanish colonial influence

texts: I am trying to find out some details about the indigenous religions in present-day Colombia and Latin America before the Spanish introduced Catholicism.  I have tried searching, but the indigenous religions are only referred to vaguely as "Indigenous Religions" or "Amerindian Religions".  Does anyone know specifically which religions were most prevalent amongst the indigenous peoples in present-day Colombia and the details of their practises and beliefs?


texts: Are there any references of Muhammad's letter to Khosrow II, outside of Islamic historiography?

texts:
In Islamic tradition and history it is said that Muhammad sent a letter to Khosrow II, a Sasanid king who was titled king of the kings, inviting him to Islam.
As history is an interactional phenomenon, thus one way to validate a historical event is to hear it from the other party involved.
In this case, finding a footprint of such a letter in Persian's history would be a historical proof for its existence and essence.
But I can't find one. One reason is that I am not a professional historian. I am only a researcher, mostly doing interdisciplinary research.
Do we have any historical record in Persian's history (not Arabs, not Muslims) to mention this letter and its subject?


texts: How did knights in full suits of armor eventually die in combat? What were the most common causes of death for soldiers in full-body plate armor?

texts:
I've heard about the battle of Agincourt that many knights probably died of drowning as they fell and their helmets filled with mud. It got me thinking: If you're going into battle on foot and in full-plate, what is the most likely cause of death for you? You're either going to walk away from the battle or die there. In the case you don't survive, how is that likely to go down? Did soldiers in full-plate know how their armor would likely be defeated if they became exhausted or disarmed?

Would the enemy soldiers try to disarm you? If so how would they do that and how would they then finish you? How would they get through your armor? Would they knock you down and try to wrestle a piece of your armor off and then stab you there? Or could they find weak points in your armor through which to stab you? Would they just hit you with hammers until the dents in your armor kill you by asphyxiation or trauma? Might they purposefully try to drown you in the mud?


texts: How were maps drawn and printed in the late 19th-early 20th centuries?

texts:
Old books published in the late 19th to early 20th centuries AD (e.g. the Loeb Classical Library) may contain one or more topographical maps of world regions.

How were these maps drawn and printed given the lack of computer technology at the time? Were they somehow typewritten just like the text of these books? If they were hand-drawn by cartographers, how were they reproduced (in an age without photocopiers)?


texts: What did Germany do in World War II about the different rail gauge in the Soviet Union?

texts:
One reason it was so hard for Germany to invade Russia/the Soviet Union in World War II (and I) was because the Russians had a different (wider) railroad gauge than that of most of the rest of Europe, making European rolling stock useless on Russian railways.

How did Germany resolve that problem in World War II? Did it capture enough Soviet rolling stock to use on Soviet railways? Did it build "trunk" lines in the Soviet Union to e.g. Stalingrad and other critical points on the European gauge? Or did it leave this problem mostly unresolved, thereby contributing to the German defeat?


texts: To what extent did Native American cultures develop metalworking for tools and weapons?

texts:
When Europeans started showing up in the New World, the native cultures were technologically far behind. Many still used stone tools: North American tribes used flint, while some Mesoamerican cultures used obsidian. Andean and other civilizations worked precious metals for decorative purposes. I was made aware in the comments that some cultures had indeed adopted bronze working, or even used meteoric iron. But on the whole, the use of hard metals like bronze and iron doesn't appear to have been nearly as widespread as in the Old World, despite many parts of the Americas having rich metal deposits.

So my question is, which cultures did make extensive use of metals for producing tools and weapons, and why did metalworking technology not become as prevalent in Pre-Colombian America as it did across Eurasia?


texts: How did contemporaries view the Byzantine Empire during the 11th century?

texts: I'm curious about how the Byzantine empire was viewed by contemporaries during the Middle Ages (11th century). By contemporaries, I mean the other powers of the era, such as Western European countries, Rome, etc.


texts: What is the proportion of Harki descendants in today's French Algerian community?

texts:
I was having this discussion once with someone, and now I am curious:

Q: What proportion of today's Algerian immigrants (of first and second generation, who may or may not have French nationality) in France are descendants of Harkis, i.e. Muslims who served in the French Army during the Algerian War?

My interlocutor was claiming that almost all of them are. I have my doubts, but could not find statistics on this. Is there an official figure somewhere?

Addendum: this might be a tricky one, since statistics based on ethnicity are typically forbidden in France and the war in Algeria and the Harkis remain kind of a touchy subject.


texts: How did Japan successfully conquer Vietnam (Southeast Asia) in WW2?

texts:
I've read the obvious wiki article (which is rather small), but did not really find an answer. At the end of the article, it says:

  To prepare for an invasion of the Dutch East Indies, some 140,000 Japanese troops invaded southern Indochina on 28 July 1941. Japanese forces remained in Indochina until the end of World War II.

Those are literally the last 2 sentences of the article. It also mentioned negotiations with Vichy France, which might lead me to believe that the region was simply transferred to Japanese control without any fighting. That's rather unbelievable IMO, and the article neither says that explicitly nor makes a single inline citation of a source.

How did Japan conquer this region? Obviously I'm interested in what Japan did successfully that France, America, and China apparently did not do in the Vietnam War (Parts 1, 2, and 3).


texts: Why did not Spain manage to keep any colonial possessions in the new world?

texts:
It is well known that Spain had a huge presence in the colonisation and discovery of the new world. The Spanish empire is one of the largest in history and held vast territory in the Americas.

Still to this day other colonial powers such as France, United Kingdom and the Netherlands maintains control over several islands in the carribean, and even territory on mainland America.

But it seems like Spain lost control of all their former colonies in the Americas, while other nations managed to keep some of theirs. Why?


texts: What were the acceptance criteria in universities of medieval Europe?

texts:
Did they have entrance tests?
Were certain groups officially banned from entering?
How much did one have to pay?
Did they have scholarships for talented studends?
How these criteria differed between countries and over time?


texts: What nationality was "Egbert Van Kampen"?

texts:
If you google a bit about the mathematician Egbert Van Kampen, almost all sources you'll find claim that he was born in Belgium in 1908.

Does anyone have any reliable sources about this person's nationality? In particular, I am curious if it is possible that this person did not acquire Belgian nationality by birth.


texts: Did Stalin disarm the Chinese Communist Party around 1927?

texts:
Can anyone provide a few details on this? Did Stalin telegraph to order disarmament of Chinese workers and to whom? And when? I am very confused about the chronology of Events. The book I mention below suggests Stalin earlier telegraphed to Communists in Wuhan to order uprisings, so as to appear having accomplished something in China. He was supposedly anxious because of the impeding Fifteenth Party Congress (in Russia). A bit later he supposedly disarmed local communists, but no more information is given of this. Confronted with these two claims, I totally don't understand when he wanted uprisings in China and when not. Below is information about how my question arose. I have already searched the web, but found nothing but brief repetition of the claim that he ordered disarmament in China.

I wondered about this while reading P. Zarrow's Book China in War and Revolution. In several places it states that Stalin disarmed the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). I can supply page numbers if desired. From the context I gather that the author means the disarmament of the General Labour Union in Shanghai, just before the anti-communist crackdown by Chiang Kai-shek. However, nowhere does he elaborate on Stalin's role in this. To make things more confusing, on page 239 he said that the CCP disarmed Shanghai's workers in order to maintain the United front with the GuoMinDang. Nowhere a mention of Stalin.


texts: Visit of Greek philosophers to Rome in 155 BCE

texts:
In 155 BCE a delegation of three Greek philosophers arrived in Rome on a political mission (to negotiate the settlement of war fines). During their stay they succeeded in raising Greek philosophy to prominent attention and seeding its future important role in Rome. This is one summary (from SEP):

  In 155 BCE Athens sent a delegation of three philosophers (Stoic,
  Academic skeptic, and Peripatetic) on an embassy to Rome. Their
  teachings caused a sensation among the educated. The Skeptic Carneades
  addressed a crowd of thousands on one day and argued that justice was
  a genuine good in its own right. The next day he argued against the
  proposition that it was in an agent's interest to be just in terms
  every bit as convincing.

Is there a canonical primary source (or recommended secondary source) that covers this significant event in the history of ideas in detail?


texts: Why was being a school teacher something looked down upon in Ancient Greece?

texts: I'm currently doing research on Epicurus for an article and I came across an passage from Timon (a central student of Pyrrho) where he calls Epicurus "Grammadidascalides", as if an epithet, along with "lowest dog among physicists" and "most uneducable of living things". Interestingly this appears to have been thrown at him so much that he banned the use of the word "schoolteacher" at some point after he developed his own following. Epicurus had a lot of epithets thrown his way by Stoics, Cynics and later by Christians, but this one I find kind of curious. Anyone have insight into why being the son of a school teacher would have been seen as something not respectable?


texts: How much of what we know about ancient philosophers comes from oral literature?

texts: Have any orally-transmitted myths survived throughout the centuries in such a form that we could identify any of the ancient philosophers of Classical Greece and Rome in them? I'm interested in finding out how much could their philosophies actually affect thinking of people in the Middle Ages.


texts: Is this "Westinghouse All Electric House" video, called a "promo from the mid 1950s", a hoax?

texts:
This video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyrTgtPTz3M

It barely has any description, the comments are turned off, and the Wikipedia article on "Westinghouse Electric Company" does not help to clear anything up.

The video seems to be obviously filmed in the 1950s, but was it a serious "promo video" for an actual kitchen that (very rich) people could buy right there and then, a made-up hoax, or a sincere "this is coming soon" kind of video which they did expect to be possible soon?

A lot of the things they show aren't really too "fantastic" -- just costly. But the "heating the food in a few seconds" part gives me "fake" vibes...


texts: Who first called natural satellites "moons"?

texts:
Question: when did someone first call the astronomical objects that orbit planets "moons"? More precisely, I'm probably looking for the first use of lunae in this context. I assume that "moons" would have been a translation of the Latin word which astronomers tended to prefer.
Presumed, but Incorrect Answer: One might assume that the answer is whoever discovered the first such objects, but this is not the case.  Galileo who discovered the first natural satellites other than the Moon did not call them moons. More on this below.
Context: I was trying to answer this question from the Astronomy Stack Exchange: Do our sun and moon have names? but I've gotten stuck. The question as asked is backwards.  The other planets' "moons" are named after the Moon and not the other way around. We call Earth's natural satellite the Moon because Middle English-speakers called it mona. And if we trace this word's origin back as far as we can, the theoretical Proto-Indo-European-speakers called the Moon *mḗh₁n̥s, probably from the root meh₁- which meant to measure, since the Moon was used to measure time (Wiktionary — Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/mḗh₁n̥s).
So there's a compelling theory about why we call the Moon the Moon, but why do we call other similar astronomical objects moons?
The naive, or the partial answer is that someone chose the word moon because these other bodies closely resembled the Moon. But this glib answer presumes that people in the past shared our current understanding of astronomy, and this is not true.
When Galileo first spotted the three (and then later the fourth) objects arrayed in a straight line near Jupiter, he described these objects as Stellae ("stars") and as Planetea ("planets") (Wikipedia — Sidereus Nuncius. You can see a use of Stellae in one of the pictures on that site (File:Medicean Stars.png). When giving them a proper name, Galileo initially chose Cosmica Sidera ("Cosimo's stars") and later Medicea Sidera ("the Medician stars").
To Galileo, it was not obvious that these objects were more similar to the Moon than to other celestial bodies. So who made the connection?
Also Interesting, but not the Answer: Johannes Kepler was apparently the first person to call the Galilean moons satellites, extending the meaning of the Latin word for "a body-guard, a courtier; an assistant" (Online Etymology Dictionary — satellite).


texts: When did the Luftwaffe lose air-superiority over the Reich?

texts:
To me one of the many crucial stages of WWII was when the Luftwaffe were no longer able to mount serious resistance to the Allied bombing raids.  While the effect of the raids if often debated, it certainly led to a shortage of fuel that compounded the situation as they could never recover as the lack of fuel led to a lack of trained pilots.

The Allies began concentrating on the Axis fuel supply and manufacturing industries around mid-1944 according to Wikipedia, was this the significant date?


texts: What impact does colonial legacy have on current US presence in the South China Sea dispute?

texts:
In recent years, the South China Sea has become somewhat important from a geo-political standpoint. China is building military bases, among many other things, and the US has been speaking about containing a militarily aggressive China. As a student of history, it is important to look at this dispute in context not only of the current political motives, but also in terms of the history.

(picture from Wikipedia)
Historically speaking, most spoken about in the media and in Wikipedia are the various territorial claims by different claimant entities. Anyone who glances at a map can see that several countries might have valid claims: China, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, Singapore, and the Philippines. Which of these countries ultimately control this water has nothing to do with my question. It is notable that the United States does not have any territory in this area, and that the United States has no territorial claim.
So why does the US Navy have a significant presence in the South China Sea? Why is this an important election issue for Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump? Why is this front page news in the US?  The media gives a few "standard narrative" answers for this, related to international freedom of navigation, international law, trade, and to protect US business interests. Strangely absent from the standard narrative is the US colonial legacy in the Philippines. The US didn't recognize the Philippines as an independent country until 1946, and had a significant military presence there until base closures in the 1990's. It would not be hard to characterize the Philippines as a client state of the US, or at least under neo-colonial control. Edit: It is suggested in the comments that the word "neo-colonial control" is to strong. The characterization is considered incorrect by many; but it is undeniable that the US has a history of economically punishing countries to not follow its policies)
It is significant that Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore, and Brunei were not fully independent from the colonial powers until after the 1960's.
It seems that to fully understand the South China Sea territorial dispute, it is critically important to understand the colonial history of the region.
So the preliminary questions are prior to 1930, were there any formal colonial claimants to this area? Did any have recognized sovereignty over this area of water?
The Big Question:
What impact does this colonial legacy have on the current US presence in this dispute?
Edit: Perhaps the US colonial legacy has no impact on US interests in this area! Any and all answers are possibly acceptable.


texts: Did a senator try to oust Woodrow Wilson from office?

texts:
The book "Raven Rock: The Story of the U.S. Government's Secret Plan to Save Itself--While the Rest of Us Die" by Garret M. Graff contains the following passage:

  When Wilson left America for the Paris Peace Conference, an absence that would stretch for months, Senator Lawrence Yates Sherman introduced a resolution to declare Wilson “absent” from office and install Vice President Thomas Marshall as the “acting” president until Wilson returned to U.S. shores. “It is a palpable violation of the act of 1790, approved by George Washington, to attempt to exercise the constitutional sovereign powers of the President within the domain of another government,” Sherman had thundered, saying, “The President of the United States is not its President in France; he is an alien there, a mere citizen of the Republic, shorn of all his sovereign powers.”

I have found references to Senator Sherman opposing the Versailles Treaty, and to an attempt to install Thomas Marshall as acting president after Wilson's stroke but I cannot find the aforementioned resolution, an act passed in 1790 that seems relevant, or another source for that quote. In short, I find this story highly dubious. Could anyone confirm or debunk this story?


texts: Circa 1940, what was the oil production of each nation?

texts:
I'm looking for a source that lists all crude oil production by each nation, as it was in 1940. The reason is to understand geopolitics of the time, especially the oil security (or lack thereof) of each nation participating in WW2.

So far I've only found the US at 4 million barrels per day according to this graph.


texts: Did Truman threaten a nuclear strike if the Soviet Union didn't withdraw from Iran in 1946?

texts:
In episode 4 of Oliver Stone's documentary series, Untold History of the United States, Stone claims that then-president Truman issued an ultimatum to the Soviet Union: either withdraw from Iran (which was partly occupied by the Soviet Union in 1946) or face a nuclear strike.

My googling did not result in a reliable source; on the contrary, it seems that Truman was merely bragging about his power in private, and the real reason for the Soviet withdrawal might have been that they managed to obtain oil concessions from Iran.

Did Truman really threaten a nuclear strike or was he just bragging?


texts: Did Ancient Romans use metal thimbles? What were they like?

texts:
The Romans didn't have forks, so they picked the food with their hands. It is known about the rich that after every course they wiped them and received from their slaves pots with perfumed water to wash them. A further claim is that the rich used metal thimbles to minimise how much they got dirty.

The English Wikipedia page on thimbles apparently quotes an article found on the magazine Aramco World:

  Oddly, neither the Romans nor the Greeks before them appear to have used metal thimbles. It may be that leather or cloth finger guards proved sufficiently robust for their purposes. There are so-called Roman thimbles in museum collections, but the provenance of these metal thimbles is, in fact, not certain, and many have been removed from display. No well-documented archeological data link metal thimbles to any Roman site.

On the other hand, the Italian page states that "open" (on the tip) iron thimbles were found in Pompeii, and on many Italian sites I've read that they dined with silver thimbles. However, I could find no sources for these claims.

Is there any evidence?


texts: Why didn't Hitler decide to wait until after winning WW2 to implement the final solution?

texts:
My question is based on the following assumptions.

Hitler believed he will eventually win WW2.
Hitler wanted to implement the final solution as part of the Nazi ideology.
Implementing the final solution required resources (manpower, materials, etc) that could have been otherwise used towards the German war effort.

Why didn't Hitler and other top Nazi leaders decide to wait until after winning, or nearly winning, WW2 before starting the implementation of the final solution? Why was he willing to accept the "cost" at the detriment of the war effort? Did he see any immediate "practical advantages" leading him to believe that the final solution has a positive contribution to the German war efforts?

To be clear, this question solely deals with Hitler's and the Nazi high command decision making process and priorities during WW2.


texts: What will be the regnal number of the next Queen Mary in the UK?

texts:
The crown of the UK is a union of the crowns of England and Scotland. (And maybe Ireland too but that's not relevant to this question.)

This means that the current Queen is "Queen Elizabeth II" for all of the UK because she is the 2nd Queen Elizabeth for the united crown, even though Scotland never had a 1st.

Similarly, the next James will be "King James VIII". The two King James of England were numbered the 1st and 2nd, but they are the same individuals as the 6th and 7th King James of Scotland.

Both England and Scotland have had separate individuals named "Queen Mary I" of each country. When Queen Mary II became Queen of both England and Scotland, the two countries still had separate crowns. It was a coincidence that both countries each had one Mary as Queen so she was "The Second" in both countries.

It is now the future and a Mary has become the new Queen of the UK.

Is she "Queen Mary III", because she will succeed from Queen Mary II? or...

Is she "Queen Mary IV", because she will be the 4th Queen Mary in the combined crown of the UK?


texts: Found picture, want to know more about. It

texts: ...this picture looks like an important United Nations meetings, however, everything is covered, or papers flipped over, which makes me think it secretive


texts: How was Martin Luther King Jr. viewed by white Americans at the time?

texts:
In today's United States, MLK Jr. is universally regarded as a hero and patriot (...or as universally regarded as one can be in this nation). By that, I mean all races, all political parties—everyone is in agreement that he was an "outstanding American" and a courageous leader of the Civil Rights Movement.

But how was he viewed at the time, and particularly how was he viewed by the American public? In other words, what did whites have to say about MLK Jr. back before he was the revered icon he is today?

If possible, I would appreciate some form of analogy with a reference that someone in 2015 would relate to, in order to be able to understand a bygone era's public sentiment in a more visceral way. I realize this may be a silly or crude exercise, but, for example, was King closer to an "Al Sharpton" figure (as in, largely viewed unfavorably, a "no-good troublemaker") or a "Pope Francis" figure ("What a great soul").

I'm curious how King's image has warped over the decades...


texts: How were the British and French armies invited into Belgium in 1914?

texts:
In August of 1914 Belgium refused entry to the German army, which then invaded Belgium. Apparently Belgium then invited the British and French armies into its territories, leading to Belgium becoming a huge battlefield.

I never see any description of how Belgium invited the British and French armies into their country. The histories describe, for example, the Battle of Ypres as though the British and French were just magically transported into those areas of Belgium. What happened?


texts: I was wondering if Assyrians and relative people on far past had beard wigs, artificial beard? Or did they really use that much time on beauty and hair beauty parlor? Or are sculptures just overly detailed and decorated by hair and beard part?


texts: Who were the first people to get divorced in Western* Christendom?

texts:
*By Western Christendom I mean non-Orthodox, non pagan, non-schismatic, non-Muslim controlled societies. So everywhere from Lagos to Lapland.

By divorce, I mean that the law recognises that two people used to be in a legally valid marriage, but are no longer married.

So, eg Henry Tudor doesn't count, because his marriage to Catherine of Aragon was annulled, and therefore (retroactively) never legally valid in the first place. Or according to the Vatican's perspective at the time, he was legally married to her until she died, and was therefore a bigamist.

Edit: Oh, and I know divorce existed in Roman times. I'm taking about Christan Europe after 1000 AD.


texts: Understanding what these reference shortforms represent

texts:
In the book "Giordano BRUNO His Life and Thought" by Dorothea Waley Singer, chapter 7  references often have a form of

18 Doc. Ven. XV.

or

49 Docc. Rom. XX, XXI.

How do I decipher their meaning?


texts:
I've been wondering lately, do we know where the idea of releasing books that were meant to be read together (such as a trilogy or longer series) came from?  It's my understanding that really old literature was generally stand alone; books might be related, but it wasn't intended that you read them in any specific order.  Even recently this has been common; there's L Frank Baum's Wizard of Oz books for one. The Chronicles of Narnia weren't imagined as a series, and C S Lewis couldn't care less what order you read them in.  J R R Tolkien saw the Lord of the Rings as one book in three parts, not a trilogy. However, these days, if books exist in the same world, there will be a "first", "second", "third", etc. almost every time.

If I had to make a guess, I would probably suggest the serialized nature of radio broadcasts as a factor.  Does anyone know for certain?

Edit: As noted in the answers/comments, this question was phrased rather poorly.  My intent was to find where the modern tradition of publishing books in numbered series came from.


texts: Why did Mark Antony not report Trebonius’ plot to kill Julius Caesar?

texts:
Trebonius approached Mark Antony at Narbo and asked him to join a plot to kill Caesar, I don’t understand why one of Caesar’s most loyal men, Antony, wouldn’t report the plot. Considering Trebonius was one of the main instigators, this could have saved Caesar’s life.

Why did Mark Antony not tell Caesar?


texts: Did New York skyscrapers construction workers take any industrial action over safety concerns?

texts:
This video talks about the construction of New York's skyscrapers such as the Chrysler Building and Empire State by the 'roughnecks', a specialized set of construction workers who worked high in the clouds for 8-hours at a stretch without bathroom breaks and deftly catching hot rivets.

But according to the Smithsonian video, two out of five of the roughnecks fell to their deaths or ended up disabled. Did such hazardous working conditions  cause any instances of strikes or revolts from the workers? Were there any attempts to unionize and lobby for better working conditions?


texts: How do I prove that Mahatma Gandhi said the following?

texts:
We may know by means of a simple Google search that Gandhi said the following: “It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of non-violence to cover impotence.” However, I need to academically refer to this quote (cite it). Does anyone know how I could do it?

I wish to know where was this statement made, or in which book.


texts: How did the bureaucratic culture of Great Britain affect its response to the protests over the Stamp Act of 1765?

texts:
I'm writing a paper on the era of the Stamp Act (1765) concerning primarily the clash of legal cultures between what was then the Colonies of North America and the mother country, Great Britain.

You can email or message me for (an abbreviated version of) what I have so far. But my mode of attack in answering this question is mostly this:

The legal culture of Great Britain centered around two main principles. Firstly that it was a bureaucracy and with it had all the shortcomings of bureaucracies. These shortcomings which were established in the legal structure of how Great Britain operated made it difficult to respond in a timely fashion to the Stamp Act rebellions. In other words, Britain was never proactive and its reactive performance was severely hampered by the strict adherence to tradition. (Rather than the grassroots, propaganda driven culture in North America.) The Second main principle was Parliamentary supremacy. This was a huge road block because it essentially gave Britain the "right" to tax the colonists. While the colonists viewed taxation as a "privilege" that was not really granted to Parliament.

Firstly I'd like to field comments. Does anybody think this is a valid line of attack? Any idea how it may be improved where its strengths and possible weaknesses are?

Secondly, I've run into a bit of a problem with sourcing this argument. I need to find more sources relating to the bureaucratic structure of Great Britain and evidence that this structure did indeed slow down reaction times and lead to an over-dependence on "civil" techniques to combat aggressive and riotous ones.

If any one can point me to references that would be great as well.

Thanks so much,

Franklin


texts: Were the mongol army boots of 13th century lined with fur?

texts:
I want to know about 13th century Mongolian army boots.

I know they used leather for their boots. The leather and the source of the leather is irrelevant to my research for now.

My question is that did they use any type of animal fur ( e.g. cow fur) in making their boots?

If yes, then did they use it on the interior of the boots or the exterior?

This might help you in answering the question.

And this.

If there's any problem in my question please inform me. Thanks!


texts: Was marriage a religious institution in its beginings or not?

texts:
According to this
The origins of marriage

The first recorded evidence of marriage ceremonies uniting one woman
and one man dates from about 2350 B.C., in Mesopotamia. Over the next
several hundred years, marriage evolved into a widespread institution
embraced by the ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans. But back then,
marriage had little to do with love or with religion.
When did religion become involved?
As the Roman Catholic Church became a powerful institution in Europe,
the blessings of a priest became a necessary step for a marriage to be
legally recognized. By the eighth century, marriage was widely
accepted in the Catholic church as a sacrament, or a ceremony to
bestow God's grace

I also have heard this from other sources, that marriage was a non religious institution in the begining.
But according to this,
The 4,000-Year-Old Sumerian Love Poem and the Sacred Ritual of Marriage

Historians say the words were recited by a bride of Sumerian King
Shu-Sin, fourth ruler of the Third Dynasty of Ur, who reigned between
2037 and 2029 BC, and used as a script for a ceremonial recreation of
the sacred marriage.
According to the Sumerian belief, it was a sacred duty for the king to
marry a priestess every year in order to make the soil and women
fertile. The ritual of sacred marriage involved the re-enactment of
the union of two deities, usually Inanna/Ishtar and Dumuzi/Tammuz.
Thus, the priestess represented Inanna, the goddess of fertility and
sexual love, while the king represented Dumuzi, on the eve of their
union.

Here they talk about sacred ritual, beliefs, gods, and this happened between 2037 and 2029 BC. So there are only 300 years between 2029/2037 BC and 2350 BC, in a period of time where I doubt there were many scriptures refering to the nature of marriage, where marriage could have been a non religious thing.
Is there any written evidence stating marriage wasnt a religious institution in its origins?


texts: Did Nazi Party members fight on the front lines?

texts: My impression was that members of the actual Nazi party were able to use their influence to get out of the most dangerous assignments.  Is this accurate?  How many of the front line infantry and officers were actually members of the Party?


texts: What language is this and what does it say?

texts:
It looks like japanese but I'm not sure. It's inscribed on my sword
(https://i.stack.imgur.com/jWo97.jpg)


texts: What's the origin of the legend that this rock formation in America had a 12th century Welsh Origin?

texts:
There is a Welsh legend/myth that America was discovered by a Welshman named Madoc the Great, in the 12th century. His Wikipedia page reads the same but also that there isn't any conclusive evidence of this legend. Wikipeda:Madoc
Similar to the Welsh legend, there is an American legend that a specific piece of land, the Devil's Backbone, has a Welsh origin, predating Colombus' voyage.

According to local legend, on this bedrock ridge once stood a stone fortress that was built by Welsh explorers led by Prince Madoc sometime in the 12th century.
Wikipeda:Devil's_Backbone

What is the origin of the American legend?
Just to be clear, I'm not asking about the authenticity of Madoc's voyage (his wikipedia page shows him being referred to numerous time by figures including Thomas Jefferson). I'm assuming the position that this voyage never occurred, and with that, I am confused over the existence of the American legend which seems to suggest otherwise.
Madoc's page further reads that the legend came to prominence during the Elizabethan Era to assert England's claim on America, over the Spanish.
My guess is, the American legend was formed during or after the Elizabethan Era. But that is a guess, not a legit answer to the question.


texts: Was the Korean King Chungnyeol instrumental in persuading Kublai Khan to invade Japan?

texts:
The Mongol invasions of Japan were costly failures. According to Wikipedia, the Korean King Chungnyeol (by this time a vassal of the Mongols) was

  ...known as the fixer who instigated Mongol Emperor to invade Japan with
  voluntary and overall naval aid to invade Japan together with Mongol
  Empire.

No sources are cited for this assertion, but Chungyeol presumably had some influence as he was married to one of Kublai Khan's daughters. Koreans also made up a substantial proportion of both invasion forces (1274 and 1281).

The Wikipedia entry on Kublai Khan isn't much help:

  Kublai decided to invade Japan, Burma, Vietnam, and Java following the suggestions of some of his Mongol officials.

Kenneth G. Henshall in A History of Japan says only that

  Kublai’s next main target was southern China, the base of the Sung
  (Song) forces. However, he also turned his attention to Japan.

At the time of the first invasion of Japan, the Mongols had yet to conquer southern China under the Song dynasty, which surrendered two years after the first invasion of Japan.

As Japan does not seem to have been especially wealthy at the time and would thus not have provided anything like the economic benefits to the Mongols that southern China could have, what convinced Kublai Khan to invade Japan first? Was the Korean King Chungnyeol instrumental in this decision?


texts: Did Napoleon ever say «On s'engage et puis… on voit»?

texts:
Lenin in his "About our revolution" cites Napoleon as saying «On s'engage et puis… on voit».
Loosely translated that is, "One jumps into the fray, then figures out what to do next", or "You commit yourself, then you see."

There are claims that it was Lenin who invented the quote and attributed it to Napoleon, and that Napoleon never said so.

So did Napoleon ever actually say that?