What are the historical evolution/origins of Columbus Day in America? Why do some US states celebrate the man who never landed here? What are the origins of Indigenous Peoples Day or like-named holidays coinciding with Columbus Day?

To be clear: I’m asking about the holiday’s history, not Columbus’s, or early “New World” interactions. Thank you!

Fuck, shit, bitch, asshole, cunt, hell all have Germanic roots. As far as I can tell even bastard has proto-Germanic origins via Frankish. The only one I can think of that does not is damn. I'm guessing that 11th century England didn't view swear words like we do today, but it's striking to me that the origins would be consistently Anglo-Saxon. Was the Anglo-Saxon language shunned by the Norman elites? Did some cultural divide result in or contribute to our modern understanding of swear words?

It seems incredibly inconvenient to be so common, and is unique and widespread enough that it had to have been an actual policy choice or urban planning fad rather than just coincidental. I also haven't seen it as frequently in other countries I've lived in, though that's just my own anecdotal experience.

When Octavius/Augustus became the first "emperor" of Rome, Rome had been a republic for five hundred years, with elected leaders and no tradition of public offices being inherited dynastically. In fact, they had a strong mythic memory of a overthrowing a tyrannical king, and great pride in having no kings thereafter. - Just like the USA does now. I'd expect the Romans to reject the idea of a hereditary leadership position. Inheritance law only applied to private property. It should have sounded like the imperial family was treating the whole empire like they owned it, like one big estate.

And then, I could imagine maybe Augustus was so canny that he pushed his own heir through, but his dynasty was so horrible that I'd think they should have totally discredited the whole idea. But they didn't. Some hundred years later, this idea of inheriting was so strongly established that emperors would go through the legal form of "adopting" an heir to satisfy the idea of inheriting the emperorship. (Imagine one US president having to adopt the next one.)

How did this happen? How did they accept it? How did they understand it?

Ok, so I know that abolition was mainly supported in the northern states, but I also know that racism against blacks was still common in the north as well. So my question is why would northerners want to abolish a practice if they didn't view black people, the primary victims of slavery, as their equals?

Also, why did they care enough to end slavery? Was it genuine moral aspirations or was there something in it for them? (broadly speaking)

1. Was Christopher Columbus Italian, or was he born the illegitimate son of a Portuguese Prince in a town called Cuba?

2. Was Columbus Jewish?

3. Was Columbus a secret agent for King John II of Portugal?

4. Why did Columbus go to sea for the Spanish?

We're they received celebrated as heroes? Or not so much?

We're they perceived as a potential insurrectionary threat in their homelands, given that they were zealous and experienced armies that had been detached from the metropolis for a considerable period?

I assume the reception also differed from one crusade to another, depending on the perception of success or failure?

The history section at my local Barnes and Noble looks like it has a lot of books on Egypt that are either pop-history or written by conspiracy theorists. I’m studying history in college but I like to read about it in my free time so I’m looking for some suggestions

For those unfamiliar, in the United States there is a pervasive myth held in the South of the so-called "Lost Cause", essentially a justification of the Civil War on the grounds that it was a battle for states rights and independence, not about slavery. Those in the South who believe in the Lost Cause take enormous pride in their ancestors and the ideals they represented, notably absent is a discussion of slavery or race issues.

After some research, I can only find articles stating that the US should learn from Germany, and that there are no Nazi memorials in the country. If that is the case, then has there really never been an analogous movement? I would imagine there would be groups of people defending themselves, their parents, and grandparents or great-grandparents who fought in WWII, and attributing their actions to patriotism or the like.*

I would also be interested in knowing how WWII and the Holocaust has historically been taught in Germany, as one of the big issues in the US is that there is no standardized nation-wide curriculum on history, so teaching of the Civil War varies by school. I'm curious if there has been one standardized curriculum handed down from the central government on teaching Germany's role in WWII.*

*EDIT: I realize that my phrasing could break the 20 year rule, I apologize for not being more precise. To avoid a conflict of this sub's rules, we would need to talk about a Lost Cause myth historically, from the end of WWII until 2000.

I've been doing some research about the arms and armour of the roman legionary, most notably the Scutum. Every preproduction seems to have the hand mounted horizontally. My question is this; * What examples are we basing this on? * Why was this used instead of a vertical handle?

My grandfather grew up in Poland in the 1930’s when he became involved in leftwing political organizations. There are family stories that when my grandfather graduated high school, he left for a year to join the International Brigades in Spain. How would I go about trying to find any records of his time in the International Brigades or any other information of his service?

In my Ancient Greek history class, the main text we are using is Raphael Sealey's A History of the Greek City States, 700-338 B.C. (1976). A basic thesis of his in the book is that the Greek poleis of the archaic and classical periods were a fundamentally new form of political and social organization, and that the Greeks of this period did not really inherit any major political institutions from Mycenaean Greece. The archaic and classical Greeks were "creating political institutions anew with nothing more to start from than the monogamous family and the fluid institutions of migrating tribes" (pg. 14).

This text was published in 1976, and I'm wondering if Sealey's claim has held up in light of recent scholarship. Did the archaic and classical Greeks really create the polis and related institutions out of nothing, or did they develop from previous institutions in Mycenaean and 'Dark Age' Greece?

In most movies with ancient battles, you see two armies line up facing each other across a big field. The armies start charging at each other, they shoot some arrows at each other and then it just becomes free-for-all sword fighting in pretty much complete chaos.

This can’t have been the only way all wars were fought. I know as technology developed new strategies developed with them, but what war strategies did people develop before then and how did they work out?

In a recent lecture video, my medieval history professor stated that before the introduction of the stirrup in the 8th century AD, that cavalry warriors in Europe, including the ancient Greeks and Romans, did not fight with big charges or actually on the horse at all. Without the stirrup, they would easily be thrown off the horse after landing a blow on someone else from the force of impact. Rather, they used horses to quickly move from place to place, and then dismounted and fought. The introduction of the stirrup allowed for fighting on the horse itself, and that led to the rise of an elite military class of knights.

This picture seems quite surprising to me. How accurate are these claims? Did the introduction of the stirrup transform the way that Europeans fought on horseback? Did Europeans really not fight on the horse itself before the introduction of the stirrup? And did its introduction actually lead to major social changes?

There's so many debates on this, and she has long captured the consciousness of artists and general public alike.

I know Cleopatra is from the Greek deriving Ptolemaic dynasty, but having a hard time finding art depictions of her from her own time. Stories and art about Cleopatra span so many different eras, with our common knowledge in the West obviously informed by European depictions.

What's real, what's bull, and what can we really say about one of the ancient world's most mysterious and engaging women?

Obviously they wore heavy clothes and had fireplaces of some sort, but I'm curious to know details about what their homes looked like and what they did to keep warm in the winter. Thanks!

Edit: I should clarify that I'm wondering mostly about the middle ages.

Hello fellow Redditors, hope your having a wonderful day! I am an agnostic atheist and I like to have an open-mind when it comes to religion. Although I may not believe that the events in the bible took place, I can’t help but think why the bible seems fictional to me. I believe in the information found in history books? What makes a “history book” that you would find in a high school different to the bible, and what makes said history book a seemingly more reliable source of historical information compared to the bible? I am not trying to start a political debate of any sorts, which is why I refrained from posting this question in a religious or atheist forum. Thanks in advance for any responses! Have an awesome rest of your day!