this is the fate of all history that isn't put into a public collection, it becomes private, and it becomes traded, commodity to be sold,

[removed]

Documented verbal contract?

[removed]

Sounds great. There's only so far that you can talk about without having it be a question or something that you read. Although having it just solely be history is a little difficult in my opinion. My best suggestion is to put it a disclaimer that such a thread will only be for "history-related topics" and give people two warnings before banning them from the sub if they don't obey the disclaimer.

At least one wasn't stolen. "It was originally given by Ngāti Whātua chief Pāora Tūhaere to a British vice-admiral in 1886, on condition it remained in the man’s family, according to a newspaper report at the time." So I don't see how they can stop it. Not a legally binding requirement to keep it in the family.

I could not agree more.

Is there such thing as a conditional gift, legally? Genuine question

[deleted]

[removed]

The UK doesn't actually have a written Constitution. Their Constitution is basically precedent. Arguably the entire government is more of a norms/customs thing and has evolved through English History.

If you have an audible account, I can recommend the various Great Courses on English History. An interesting sub theme of all of them is the evolution of the English government based on evolving norms and customs. I'm not aware of any good source that focuses on the topic, but I'm sure something exists, and now I might ask for one on Book Club Wednesday.

Not plundered. Gifted as a prize after competition between two men.

Well we have this Saturday Questions thread

and a Wednesday Bookclub/Sources thread where people can talk about the books they've been reading

We're definitely wanting to do more for the community, but we do need things to be a bit on topic and about history. If you can think of a way we could do a Mindless Monday or whatever that still has a bit of a history theme I'd be more than happy to talk it over with the other mods and see if we can trial something.

[removed]

[removed]

That's true, but also the problem: the same thing eventually happened with the Samurai, and knights varied by region, with some Spanish knights being administrators involved with commerce, where French knights would be explicitly banned from such a thing.

The only thing really in common is the expectation that such a class will provide something of value to a war when needed, and that they're supposed to be able to fight, even if they really can't.

[deleted]

Like Mindless Mondays on that sub where it's a weekly or daily thread. I think that will definitely increase this sub's presence and make this sub feel less elitist/gatekeeping.

Who invented ZERO? I’m no mathematician, so please explain this to me like I’m a dummy. To my understanding, the Babylonians flirted with the theory of zero in numeric systems, those from India were the first to actually use zero in numeric systems, and the Mayans were the first overall to use zero, but this was done so in their calendar systems. Please correct me if misunderstood :)

[removed]

No rule against perpetuities?

While the Monarch is the Head of the Church there are 2 things I see that keep it from being a Theocracy,

1.) The religion though a state religion is not imposed as the only allowed religion in the country, as it qould be in a Theocracy. The UK is home to Anglicans, Catholics, Presbyterians, many other forms of Christianity, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Zoroastrians and many other people and also people whp subscribe to a religion or are Atheist. All are allowed to freely practice and exist without the state penalizing them for not being Anglican.

2.) The role as Head of the Church of England coexists with the role of Monarch and theoretically could be separated or delegated to another individual though this has never happened and most likely never will. It exists seperately as a safeguard against Republicanism, i.e. should the UK become the Republic of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and do away with the Monarchy as it did between 1649-1660 with the Commonwealth. The role as Head of the Church of England transferred from Charles I to Charles II despite Charles II living in exile in France and the commonwealth heads were Puritans Oliver Cromwell and then his son Richard Cromwell who inherited ran the country as the "Lord Protector" (which was also a hereditary leadership office) so the office of Head of the Church of England is seperate from the Monarch while simultaneously being held by the Monarch and because the office of that role is separate technically the Monarch isn't acting in the role of Head of the Church of England while doing their job as Monarch. Think of the Head of the Church of England as a form of inherited Papacy or Bishopric where a man or a woman who inherits it. The Pope is actually in the same situation he is both Head of the Catholic Church but also he is the elected King of Vatican the country. So the Pope too a religious head while simultaneously being a monarch.

My opinion is that it is correct to call it the byzantine empire, since the empire was ruled from the city of byzantium. We must still remember they were the descendants of the romans, so the roman empire is applicable, but it is less specific

Thanks! That matches what I remember, but it's been a long time since I read anything about that front and I didn't want to make a claim I couldn't substantiate.

The short version:

The area of Palestine and the areas around it has been occupied, and called home, by many different groups over thousands of years.

Jewish people lived in the region in antiquity, likely having split from an indigenous population (rather than anything like presented in Exodus). However, many groups (including Rome) eventually conquered this region, and overtime there were several Jewish diasporas where Jewish people migrated out of the region.

The origins of the Palestinian people is also a bit complex, with some identifying directly with the indigenous people as well.

Of course some Jewish people continued to live in the region continuously, but a huge factor was the persecution that Jewish people faced in Europe and other areas that they migrated to. In 1492, the Jewish people were forced to leave the Iberian peninsula (the Alhambra Decree). The Ottoman Empire, having flourished in the time in between, offered a home to these fleeing Jewish peoples and they settled in various parts of the Ottoman Empire, including Palestine.

While we don't want to paint things as perfect relationship between Jewish and Ottoman peoples, there wasn't constant hatred and fighting either. There were some elements of class, which gave benefits but also took away equal opportunities. Such as the rights for more secular courts, but not being allowed the same titles, roles, etc. that Muslims could gain. But there were periods and examples of unity (Michelle Campos' Ottoman Brothers is a great read on this tension).

The Ottoman Empire was badly weakened by a drought which happened to coincide with the First World War, which is some really poor timing. This allowed for groups within the Empire that wanted autonomy to start making moves, which fractured things further (e.g. The Turks). After the War, the Allies took it upon themselves to start policing the region and creating new nations. Based on popular beliefs at the time, and understanding the troubles which led to WWI, they began to separate people into their own groups figuring it would help. One of these areas was Mandatory Palestine.

In M.P the French and the British controlled how things were run, and the British Prime Minister created the Balfour Declaration which supported Zionists which believed that they deserved to reverse the diasporas and return and have their homeland in the region like they had in antiquity. So he promised them that this could be done as part of M.P. Of course, this angered some other groups that the British had screwed over, including the Turks, who felt there was a sense of favourtism and too much Western influence when this was about self-determination and autonomy.

They tried a bunch of different proposals, some taken with actual steps, some just ideas on paper: including only Jewish people zones, and only Arab people zones (population exchanges were an unfortunately popular idea at this time as well). The more and more that the western powers tried to get involve, the more tensions rised. And as one side would grow more extreme, the other would do so in response. By the 1940s things were incredibly heated, and WWII meant there was only so much attention that could be placed here, but also was heightened by the antisemitism which was at the centre stage of Nazism which made Jewish peoples even stronger in their demand for a home of their own under their own control. War would break out in M.P, and the British firmly decided they didn't want to deal with any of this that they helped create, and slowly withdrew.

M.P. ended in 1948 and as soon as it did a group of Arab states declared war and Israel declared in dependence. A full scale war was on. Israel would win this war, and help to cement a fear of their neighbours wanting their destruction, and help cement a fear of Israel trying to take over and conquer the arab people in the region. These tensions have gone in waves and valleys, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Israel

So both continue fighting each other, now in less large scale wars but in smaller fights, and instead of looking for ways to make peace and equal concessions, there's just more finger pointing, and thus continued tensions.

Of course, like I said ,this is the short version and it's almost 5k words. It's a very complicated thing, and I haven't even begun to scratch the surface.