I am talking about the theory that Yahweh originally started as a minor storm warrior god.

He who causes to be (Yahweh) besides being a pretty metal name has nothing to do with storms. It's not like there was a myth about the world being created in a storm.

This suggests even in the beginning when Yahweh wasn't the only god or the only god worshipped, he was at least a creator god.

Warring states broke out in both China and Japan, however in medieval western europe, fuedalism was a large part of it

Can anyone run through with me the history or clear up any potential misunderstandings that I have? Thanks!

I am really interested in history, and while I have read lots of history in the past, I want to read way more than I previously have.

Here goes my problem: I reread a lot of sentences. I read lots of British authors, and their sentences seem very complex. Even then, I understand 95% pretty easily. Should I just no reread anything, and just keep going? Also, the British use lots of uncommon words, googling these slows me down as well.

Does anyone kind of skim? I want to absorb each book, and not skim, but I really want to increase the number of books I have read on the subjects I am interested in.

I'm wondering if Lenin was more significant in bringing the October revolution or if the provisional government was more competent, could Lenin still had seized control? Meaning it would be more of a PG factor rather than Lenin being the most important.

So totally random but after a conversation with my sister earlier, I totally had forgotten about this… like 10 years ago, a distant relative found us doing one of those DNA lookup service things. To make a long story short, my great great great grandmother or something to that effect had her lineage traced back. The story we got was during the French Revolution, as the royal family was being ousted/slaughtered, one of the family houses was attacked. The entire household was slaughtered, with the exception of an infant baby girl. A Norwegian immigrant who was a “nurse maiden” for the house allegedly claimed that baby as her own, and the citizens allowed her to leave and take the baby with her. She fled back to Norway and raised the baby as her own.

We had no idea about any of this happening so hearing this crazy story from some random lady online was hard to believe. Eventually my mom met with this woman, and they spent quite some time discussing it. She had all the documents from the DNA lookup and the background for it. I don’t recall with DNA company it was but I remember it was a big and well-known name. She did not ask my mom for any money or anything, and didn’t want to intrude in our lives, she just found the story to be crazy, and when she saw there were other distant relative descendants she decided to reach out and share what she had found. My mom apparently was able to confirm her story somehow, but after this it was mostly forgotten about within our family, and that woman has since passed away.

Can anyone point me in a direction where I might be able to find the info about this happening? My sister and I had just discussed how cool it would be to know exactly which “house” and lineage she came from and all that. My mom didn’t get copies of the documents from the woman, and she doesn’t want to do her own DNA thing for privacy reasons, and my sister and I have both decided not to do so either, but my grandpa was traced back to her. His middle name is his grandfathers first name, and he was one of two sons birthed by that French royal baby-turned Norwegian.

Anyways, just thought I’d see if anyone knew where I might be able to look into this? Curiosity has peaked now after just typing this up haha.

Anyways, thanks for reading 🫡

In imperial Japan, members of the royal family were obliged to enter military academy and serve as active duty officers. During WW2, several of them, at least one in every branch family were in active service and in commanding positions in the Japanese military.

The war responsibility of some of these royals have been debated. Prince Asaka who was in command of the Chinese expeditionary force for a while is sometimes blamed for the Nanjing massacre. Prince Takeda was a Kwantung army officer and he is said to have had knowledge of the Kwantung army's unethical human experiments/biological warfare program.

Since these royals were later degraded to commoners, and their existence wasn't strictly *necessary* for the continued survival of the Japanese imperial family, I do have to wonder why all these lesser royals were all supposedly given blanket immunity from war crimes prosecutions.

Meanwhile, I did read that royal officers were usually just figureheads supposed to sit back and watch their subordinates do all the work. That would significantly reduce command responsibility, though flimsy.

So... what's the truth, even? It is bizarre that not even one person ever seriously considered putting the lesser royals on trial. Heck, Prince Higashikuni even became prime minister for a while!

By which I mean, a lone warrior who managed to kill multiple armed opponents, either in a single battle or on some sort of rampage.

And I added "pre-20th Century" because I know about Simo Hayha and Audie Murphy.

There is a Russian mathematician (I will not call him a historian, for reasons that will become clear soon) named Anatoly Fomenko who has essentially spent decades writing a series of books in which, from my understanding, he claims to "prove" via mathematics that pretty much all of recorded history has happened within the last 1,000 years. My understanding is that he basically claims that a lot of mythological and historical events that we think occurred at different times were actually the same event (the Trojan War and the Crusades are two events he claims were one and the same). I have not read his books, but based on what I have read about those books, he claims that what we view as history was largely made up by monks during the Renaissance, and that the proofs historians rely on for dating specific historical events are based on circular reasoning.

Of course, Fomkeno's work is highly ideological, and one of it's major goals seems to be to argue that Eastern European and Byzantine civilization was much more important to history than historians claim it was, and in fact this was a major reason his books became so popular in his country, even though in most of the world (including the U.S, where I live) they are obscure in general and brought up only to be rightly debunked. But, while his specific claims may be bogus, I feel like the question as to how confident we can be about specific historical events happening when they did is a legitimate one, especially in the case of events that wouldn't necessarily leave behind archaeological evidence. For instance, how can we have any sort of confidence as to when specific religious beliefs emerged, unless we find like a plaque somewhere that mentions the beliefs and can be dated? The same thing goes for books written throughout history, where it is easy to imagine a book written in say 800 CE, but backdated to 100 CE and attributed to an older author in order to lend it great credibility. Unless we were to find a manuscript that could be carbon-dated, how could we prove when the book was written?

I feel like this is an interesting question, although I understand that when you start doubting everything, history becomes almost impossible to work as a discipline, and at some level there has to be a leap of faith.

It's on the tip of my tongue but I genuinely cannot remember anything other than theses two things. The reason I would like to know is because I really just want to do more research into him because that alone is hilarious.

Just had this random thought at midnight 🤔

Did WW1 and WW2 actually speed up technological development? So many things like radar, rockets, jet engines, computers, nuclear tech, etc. advanced during the wars.

Would these technologies have developed at roughly the same pace without the wars, or did war genuinely accelerate innovation?

Thank you all for your answers to my earlier question about "broken arrows"! I'm reading up on Cold War nuclear testing. I have a cynical bent of mind, and I'm always looking for the real motive behind war -- which is generally money.

The ancients went to war for profit: land, loot, slaves. I wondered what they would make of firebombing cities. That led me to wonder who might have profited from the use of nuclear weapons against Japan; and how the profit motive might have been involved in the subsequent testing of nuclear weapons by the US.

(Obviously the other nuclear powers also engaged in testing; I'm just far more familiar with the US program, at this stage.)