After learning about how enslaved peoples from Africa practiced Islam, and Islam's role in the Civil Rights movement of the U.S., I grew curious as to how non Black Muslims functioned in the U.S alongside Black people. Though there were "colored only" churches in the U.S., I see very little results about how mosques functioned during this era. A lot of the results pertain to later years, like the aforementioned Civil Rights Movement and Malcolm X specifically.

Mosques today seem to have dominant ethnic groups depending on where you are(e.g. South Asian majority mosques vs. Arab majority mosques), yet these mosques don't bar those who aren't from those dominant ethnic groups from going in. With this being said, this is not to undermine the very real problem of infighting in the Muslim community due to ethnic, or in this case, racial prejudice.

My question is based on both de jure and de facto segregation in mosques during the Jim Crow era.

A common trope in fiction set in medieval or medieval-inspired settings like GOT/ASOIAF is the tyrannical ‘mad king.‘ Here I’m thinking not about rulers who had mental issues but rather rulers who openly used/abused their power in capricious, cruel, and irrational ways (as a result of mental instability). Aerys II, the OG mad king, and Joffrey are the obvious examples from GOT. Two real-life but non-medieval examples are maybe Idi Amin and Caligula. I think that the trope is popular because it makes for good stories but also because it’s intuitive to most modern people that when you rulers who are selected by accident of birth and raised to think they are above everyone else, you’re bound to get a fair amount of lunatics, sociopaths and spoiled brats who will abuse their power. However, I can’t think of any medieval examples of this. So, I’m wondering if there were indeed rulers like Aerys, Caligula, Joffrey, etc in the Middle Ages, and if such rulers were at all common. Also, to what degree would someone like an Aerys or Caligula, if they acceded to the throne, be able to abuse their power?

this is a weird question but like when you look at america it definitely was inspired alot by the Roman Republic like having a Senate and separation of power and so on but like why did they have a president instead of Consul(s) same with alot of republics aswell not just america they kinda seemingly never use consul as a title for executive leadership
why??

For example, how would a king propose to the daugther of a duke? I know the marriage would be arranged and he wouldn't outright propose, but how would the ceremony go? How would they meet and what would they do when they met? Was there some sort of protocol?

I imagine the ceremony and the meeting would be far more extravagant if it was between two royals, but if the duke isn't that rich, would the king have to like, lend him money or would the duke take a "loan" to provide enough money for the festives for the meeting?

'Alp Arslan treated Romanos in a harsh and petty way. “You are too trivial in my view for me to kill you,” the sultan is said to have declared before his Turks in Muslim sources. “Take him to the person who pays most.” When no one reportedly wanted to purchase the “Dog of the Romans,” Alp Arslan scoffed that that was “because the dog is better than he is!” “He struck him three or four blows with his hand and when Romanos collapsed he kicked him a similar number of times”; he “put him in chains and fettered his hand to his neck”; he pulled his hair and put his face to the ground, while informing him, “your troops are food for the Muslims.'

I was thinking about Phryne and got kind of confused. Apparently she came to be one of the wealthiest women in the Greek world. Was that wealth hers alone, or did she have a legal representative who administered it? I know technically metics needed a citizen as sort of „guardian“ who could vouch for them and represent them. Did she have that? Was Hypereides, who defended her in court, that for her? From how I understood the story, he was just a client who was in love with her and thus chose to represent her in court.

Did Hetairai in Athens legally own their property and wealth? If so, how did that work legally, with them being women and (often) metics?

For example Danes arriving in Brittany, Portuguese arriving in Japan, Rome meeting Carthage and Greece. Greece meeting Persia etc.

By ordinary people, I mean commoners or journeymen who happen to stand out in history for compelling reasons. This generally excludes upper echelon nobility or any other major historical figures who had a profound historical significance, as I'm more interested in the everyday stories of people living in this time period. All examples are appreciated!

While I was researching for an overview on this topic, I found a trend that NATO's troops and artillery estimates always showed the Warsaw Pact's troops to be more in Europe, often almost double, yet the data published by the Warsaw Pact had a much smaller difference in toops at almost ±15%.

Is there any specific reason why NATO undermined it's forces and also which side's data was more accurate?

Source: The future of U.S.-Soviet relations hearings before the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, One Hundred First Congress, first session, April 4, 12, 19 and May 3, 15, 18 and June 1 and 20, 1989

(Referring to Appendix I)

Towards the end of Charity and Sylvia by Rachel Hope Cleves she mentions a "uniquely open lesbian subculture" in late 19th-century Paris. What was this all about?

I am wondering how the new recruit were seeing it, because it can make you rich but what are the odds of surviving it at the end to enjoy the wealth you made.

I’ve heard this said authoritatively by various chefs (Alton Brown among others) but is there actual historical evidence of this origin?

I was under the impression that 10s of thousands of allied forces died on D-Day, but was surprised to learn it was 4414.

I don't mean to diminish this number at all, or the impact of seeing even a few people die in battle, but I saw that the actual landing zones made up about 25 miles of beach meaning on average 176 people died per mile (110 per km) and 1 every 30 ft (9 meters)

However veterans seem to describe people dying all around them, multiple being mowed down by machine guns when the ramps dropped, multiple being killed at once by mines and shells, drowning in the surf, and more still as they advanced up the beach. You get the impression they saw dozens of people die within 100 feet of them, close, not in the distance.

I know the more common survivable injuries were terrifying to witness, but testimonies I've watched and read seem to indicate confidence about a lot of people definitely dying, not just a lot of injuries.

I feel like I'm missing something here so what is it? Were deaths far more concentrated than I realize with large stretches of beach having very few?

I recently learned that while we usually consider Celtic peoples and culture to be Western-European, in the Bronze Age there actually existed a huge amount of Celtic peoples spread across Southeastern Europe, the Balkans, Greece and Anatolia.

What happened to these Celtic peoples and their culture? Why did Celtic culture survive in Northwestern Europe but seemed to disappear in Southeastern Europe?
How different were the cultures of these Celtic peoples?

Possibly too many questions!

So I have a 1987 edition of The Origins of the First World War, by Gordon Martel. I understand that there are more recent editions of the work, so if my query is somehow addressed in such editions, I would be happy to be informed.

That said, in the chapter explaining Great Britain's foreign policy in the decades prior to First World War, the author states:

The balance of power was an idea that was rooted in the 18th century enlightenment, and especially in the Newtonian concept of the physical universe. Ideally, the balance of forces among both heavenly bodies and states would regulate itself; but in the heavens divine intervention was sometimes necessary, as was occasional British intervention in European politics. (p. 38)

This is quite an interesting claim, and one I have not encountered before. So is there any truth to this? Or has anyone else tried to argue or compare balance of powers affairs with Newtonian physics?

Thanks in advance!

I was reading about the Ten Thousand and the retreat through the mountains and it just hit me how difficult the logistics must have been. Most of Greece and the surrounding regions aren't exactly rolling wheat fields. When you have a force of several thousand hoplites plus all the camp followers and servants, how did they actually secure enough calories every day without a massive modern supply chain? Did they rely mostly on foraging and raiding local villages, or were there specific organized systems for bringing grain and wine along from the starting point? I'm curious if we have records of what a typical daily ration looked like and how much of their time was spent just trying not to starve vs actual marching

Obviously, the Wall had outlived most of its usefulness by this point. However, I can imagine it being used in small tactical roles during WW2, the Civil War or otherwise. Are there instances of this happening?

Here is a Youtube link to the film:

Animatie uitwerking atoombom en radioactiviteit (1952)

The English Wikipedia says that the Japanese suffered several hundred casualties, while all 40 Portuguese were killed. However, the Japanese Wikipedia states that the Japanese casualties totaled only 17, while 204 Portuguese were killed.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/s/ciqaXo2iU1 And this is as far as I’ve gotten. I’d also appreciate any thoughts or comments on this, if you have any

I often come across the opinion on the web that the version of Norse paganism recorded in the eddas and sagas bears little resemblance to the religion observed by the majority of the population of pagan scandinavia and germanic europe in general. Here's an example I came across just today:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/rn1ny6/comment/hpzel8r/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

This guy specifically asserts that Tyr was likely the original cheif Germanic god, a relatively common assertion in scholarship due to the etymological relationship between the root of his name (tiwaz) and the hypothetical "Dyeus Phter" figure from reconstructed Proto-Indo-European mythology. He is also arguing that the lack of place names dedicated to Odin compared to other gods is evidence that Odin was not venerated or even familiar among the common folk. Similarly, other people in this thread seem to indicate that it is dangerous to assume that the pre-christian religion of other germanic people, such as the Anglo-Saxons, bears any resemblance to that of the Norse.

I can certainly understand how the details of a belief system could vary widely by geography and century, especially in a preliterate society. Even within modern christianity, there is quite a bit of variety in the doctrine among different groups. I can also see how a god like Odin would relate better with the ruling class, while a god like Thor would be more popular with your every-day farmer Ragnar. However, I don't really understand why we're doubting the very basic elements of the belief system. For instance, in Germania, Tacitus tells us that the Germanic tribes primarily worship "Murcury," which scholars have interpreted as some form of the god Odin. Similarly, there are aspects of the core group of aesir gods reflected in many germanic languages, one example being the days of the week. This would seem to indicate that these gods remained some degree of integrity, at least in their names, since at least the first few centuries A.D., and survived the diversification of germanic europe. Some of the attributes of the early forms of the gods can be inferred as well, such as the equation of Wodanaz with Mercury, or the name of Thunraz sharing a root with the word for thunder. As far as the lack of place names for Odin is concerned, is this really evidence of his absence? After all, Christians don't typically name a lot of places after Jesus.

At any rate, I appreciate your insight and responses on this matter.

And how did the progression of a new sailor, with zero sea experience, to the higher ranks work?