Sorry if I am not clear. Judging from the tv shows and films which took place during the height of the Roman empire which was around 100AD to the middle ages as far as 1000AD, all the craftmanship, weapons, architecture looked very similar between all these years. In a lot of cases, it looked like Romans had better weapons/armor, cities than the other European settlements dating more than 1000 years later like for example Wessex during the raids by the Norse men. Why is that?

Thank you

As an example to clarify what I mean, take the French Revolution in 1789, obviously this was a major event when it happened and people wrote all about it or preserved the facts surrounding it. The knowledge has then been passed down uninterrupted up until now. Where as with something like the city of Uruk I presume excavations in modern times is where our knowledge of these times comes from, by piecing together discovered artifacts. I assume that historians during the French revolution were quite unaware of Uruk having existed. But what about events in between, like ancient Macedonia or ancient Egypt.

Hello everyone! We all know that most of the slaves were black people. However, we don't talk much about native americans, what happened to them? Were they slaves too or were they left alone at that time?

If I were to gather up my communist comrades in my country (UK) today and lauch a coup, overthrowing our PM and Queen and putting myself in charge, the military would probably tell me to fuck off and not be loyal towards me in the case of war and not take orders, etc. Why did the military decide to support and be loyal towards Lenin after the Bolshevik coup?

How would one end up here(volunteered, drafted ect) and how long would it take between enlistment and being on the front and what sort of training, equipment could I expect to go there with. Stalingrad is just an example, any war time recruit after the German invasion of USSR is what im curious about. Thank you

The concept doesn’t seem that far out to me and I know McCarthy used historical facts as basis for much of the book. The ex-soldier (who may not have even been a soldier to begin with) is named Captain White and he actively recruits young and violent men into his group in order to steal land and money from both Mexicans and Native Americans. Just wondering if there’s any specific historical figure (or figures) who may have committed similar crimes.

In the age of the internet a lot of information is released every minute. Much of it are obscure raccounts that cannot be fact-checked, and then there are some sources that just plainly have the intention of misinforming. Are there any instances of big assumptions in history that were proven wrong because the primary source in which we based our knowledge was recorded with malicious intent? That someone from the past trolled us?

I am just taking a class on anthropology and i learned a lot about excavations and surveys. I read that historians, anthropologists, archaeologist etc want to exploit as much as they can from a site to study and while being non destructive. Say survey before excavating or excavating layers by layer to have a timeline and recording everything.

It then came to my mind if they ever stop and say "we could get more info out of it if we had better tools" and stop. Say an ancient sealed tomb. Once you open it, its exposed. So maybe x-rays or ultrasounds tech would help and they leave it sealed until then. Or do researchers always go for it and try to get as much as they can from what they have.

I mean, there's only so much we can wait and hope on tech but also theres only so much on artifacts on a site that once excavated is tampered with.

I am fairly knew to this field. Sorry if its dump and/or not allowed here. Thanks!

This question was motivated by the /r/todayilearned post about Louis Sockalexis, and by the current conflicts between First Nations people and the Federal/Provincial governments here in Canada. We rarely hear about First Nations, Inuit, or Native American people who are famous for playing sports, starting businesses, making scientific discoveries, engaging in passive resistance, etc. and I'd like to know more. Biography and memoire recommendations are welcome.

This question was asked 4 years ago and there are no comment

im watching this channel on youtube, by Dr mark felton and it intrigued me

I'm searching about it but I can't find any example of another Greek democratic city-state

I've started watching Barbarians on Netflix and I noticed they believed in Wotan (Odin) and I saw they had a different name for Thor. When did they first start believing in Norse mythology and how did it come around?

It’s almost Halloween and I’ve been thinking of that stereotypical witch’s laugh and the evil scientist diabolical laugh and was wondering how that began, whether that’s cinema or in literature before that.

When reading books and viewing lectures on the subject I find a consistent trend of historians leaving out anything other than vague descriptions of conquistador tactics during events such as Cortes’ campaign in Mexico. Obviously battles and tactics and weapons are not the most crucial part of such an important time in history and usually I look at that sort of thing last but now I just have to know!

I know during the siege against the Aztecs/Mexica the conquistadors had a large force of native allies but prior to that the Spanish fight numerous battles on their own while being outnumbered. Obviously the technology advantage (guns, steel armor, horses etc) was important but how exactly did they use those advantages? All I ever seem to find is something along the lines of “Spanish had guns, shot guns, enemy dead, Spanish win” or something equally vague. Do we know what tactics the conquistadors employed in these battles? If so what were they? Thanks!

I’m attending a high society banquet in medieval attire and as I have not spent anything on holidays this year have decided to spend a bit extra. From the suggestions I’ll post an update photo in a couple of months of what I put together. I’ll be taking my girlfriend as well so would be interested in information on both genders.

Full passage, spoken between a physician and a nurse:

[Nurse:] “Aren’t they any closer to a vaccine then?”

She shook her head and her loose braid leapt. “No one’s even managed to isolate the bacterium on a slide yet. Perhaps the little bugger’s too small for us to see and we’ll have to wait for the instrument makers to come up with a stronger microscope, or possibly it’s some new form of microbe altogether.”

Of note, the novel, The Pull of the Stars, is set in Ireland

I recently finished re-reading Guns, Germs and Steel and still find the arguments compelling and logical throughout most of this book. However, I am aware that my knowledge goes little further than majoring in history in undergrad and was curious how he has been regarded. I've heard some rumblings in the comments in this sub about the fallacies of geographic determinism but never seen a cohesive breakdown of why he's wrong or how wrong he is. Having loved historiography during my undergrad, I am very interested in learning how this book is viewed among professional historians and others who study the past.