https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haudenosaunee#Government

https://collections.lacma.org/object/76652

https://collections.lacma.org/object/83039

https://collections.lacma.org/object/62754

https://www.khm.at/en/artworks/spiralring-mit-zwei-buesten-325431

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katie_Sandwina

Ah. I don’t know that I’d count a filter on the same level of modern AI-gen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_the_World's_Religions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bayonne

No group has yet claimed responsibility for the explosion, while investigations are ongoing.

Concerning. Unfortunately, considering the Syrian government’s many enemies, it could be nearly anyone.

This was before the Hawaiian King learned to go Super Saiyan

Interestingly enough, there used to be a relatively large partially-Black (“Zanj”) population in Iraq and the Levant!

Despite the Arabian peninsula being culturally important to Arab peoples, it couldn’t support a large population of slaves, because it couldn’t support a large population of… anyone, really, until the discovery of a vast wealth of oil reserves in the mid-20th century.

For those unaware, the A-10’s main gun, the GAU-8 30mm autocannon, had to have an entire aircraft designed around it - the A-10 - just to have an aircraft that wouldn’t destabilize itself or shake to pieces by the force of firing the gun! So unless we’re making that drone beefy af…

Illegal information. How fantastic. /s

Slaves imported from Central Asia were highly valued for their riding expertise - and since cavalry was a key part of Islamic armies, slaves from Central Asia often ended up as soldiers.

On the other hand, most European slaves came from the Balkans or the Caucasus, both mountainous regions with… long histories of clan feuding and warrior/honor cultures. As such, they too often made excellent soldiers.

Slaves from Africa were plentiful, due to the extreme political disunity (and thus constant warring) in African polities, but generally from a wide variety of cultures, and so garnered less of a ‘reputation’ for suitability to certain tasks.

… don’t ask about the process of making eunuchs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamehameha_I#Aliʻi_Moʻi_of_the_Hawaiian_Islands

The origins of the Law of the Splintered Paddle are derived from before the unification of the Island of Hawaiʻi. In 1782 during a raid, Kamehameha caught his foot in a rock. Two local fishermen, fearful of the great warrior, hit Kamehameha hard on the head with a large paddle, which broke the paddle. Kamehameha was stunned and left for dead, allowing the fisherman and his companion to escape. Twelve years later, the same fishermen were brought before Kamehameha for punishment. The king instead blamed himself for attacking innocent people, gave the fishermen gifts of land and set them free. He declared the new law, “Let every elderly person, woman, and child lie by the roadside in safety”.[36]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobster_War

The Lobster War (also known as the Lobster Operation; Portuguese: Guerra da Lagosta; French: Conflit de la langouste) was a dispute over spiny lobsters that occurred from 1961 to 1963 between Brazil and France. The Brazilian government refused to allow French fishing vessels to catch spiny lobsters 100 miles (160 km) off Brazil’s northeastern coast[5] by arguing that lobsters “crawl along the continental shelf”. The French maintained that “lobsters swim” and so they could be caught by any fishing vessel from any country.[6]

Bayonet production committee is waiting on the requisite permission forms to start the assembly line up again (it has been eleven months and counting)

Explanation: The Roman Republic had a strange capacity to raise troops seemingly out of thin air whenever they suffered massive defeats. One historian of the time compared the Republic’s capacity to raise new armies to ‘water gushing from a fountain.’

The real reasons for this are multifaceted, but in the briefest sense, could be considered the core values of the Roman Republic.

Romans believed that they were born as a city of exiles and outsiders, and while they could be immensely chauvinist as to whose ways were better, this also meant that they were generally willing to accept and assimilate outsiders who ‘wanted in’. This seems unexceptional to our eyes, but in antiquity, where many city-states had populations of ‘foreigners’ who had resided in the city for generations but were never granted the opportunity to become ‘real’ citizens, this was an exceptional advantage. So if there was a shortage of Romans all of a sudden, a little bending of the usual rules to ‘create’ new ones was very much in the cards!

The Romans also believed that their polity was for the good of the people. Again, this sounds unexceptional to our ears, but in antiquity, was positively radical. Not only did the Romans envision their Res Publica as working for the good of non-citizens (if without their input, conveniently) as well as citizens, but also, the Roman citizen body was much broader than most contemporary regimes. Athens, for example, the shining model of Classical democracy, only about ~10% of the city’s population were citizens. In the Roman Republic, it’s generally considered that over 50% of the city was made of citizens. For this reason, a very large percentage of people felt that they had a real stake in the survival of their Res Publica - part of the government, not just ruled by it.

And another was the aforementioned chauvinism. While not an unusual value in societies of antiquity, Roman pride and arrogance was noted as particularly intense even by contemporaries, and nothing stings quite like wounded pride. What, are you going to let a bunch of OUTSIDERS humiliate OUR Republic, citizen!? GET OUT THERE AND TEACH THOSE BASTARDS A LESSON THEY’LL NEVER FORGET!

Explanation: The Roman Republic had a strange capacity to raise troops seemingly out of thin air whenever they suffered massive defeats. One historian of the time compared the Republic’s capacity to raise new armies to ‘water gushing from a fountain.’

The real reasons for this are multifaceted, but in the briefest sense, could be considered the core values of the Roman Republic.

Romans believed that they were born as a city of exiles and outsiders, and while they could be immensely chauvinist as to whose ways were better, this also meant that they were generally willing to accept and assimilate outsiders who ‘wanted in’. This seems unexceptional to our eyes, but in antiquity, where many city-states had populations of ‘foreigners’ who had resided in the city for generations but were never granted the opportunity to become ‘real’ citizens, this was an exceptional advantage. So if there was a shortage of Romans all of a sudden, a little bending of the usual rules to ‘create’ new ones was very much in the cards!

The Romans also believed that their polity was for the good of the people. Again, this sounds unexceptional to our ears, but in antiquity, was positively radical. Not only did the Romans envision their Res Publica as working for the good of non-citizens (if without their input, conveniently) as well as citizens, but also, the Roman citizen body was much broader than most contemporary regimes. Athens, for example, the shining model of Classical democracy, only about ~10% of the city’s population were citizens. In the Roman Republic, it’s generally considered that over 50% of the city was made of citizens. For this reason, a very large percentage of people felt that they had a real stake in the survival of their Res Publica - part of the government, not just ruled by it.

And another was the aforementioned chauvinism. While not an unusual value in societies of antiquity, Roman pride and arrogance was noted as particularly intense even by contemporaries, and nothing stings quite like wounded pride. What, are you going to let a bunch of OUTSIDERS humiliate OUR Republic, citizen!? GET OUT THERE AND TEACH THOSE BASTARDS A LESSON THEY’LL NEVER FORGET!