My fiancé and I were having a discussion yesterday and this thought just popped into my head.

Ancient Pharaohs painted themselves as Gods and the slaves were born into servitude. My line of thought is they must have believed they were servants of gods and worked from dawn to dusk to worship them. I often wonder if they even knew the concept of slavery or just believed it was their calling to help build the pyramids and please their gods.

Forgive me if it’s a silly question.

I am a kid. One sho loves history. Of course my learning will be limited until I can pursue it in further studies.
This might not be the best question, but could somebody kindly explain what exactly papers are and the best way to write it? I've only ever wrote short statements that are directly related to a piece of evidence or historical quote given to me.

Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Were they all given US citizenship? Were they kicked out? At what point did English become more commonly spoken in those areas (many states and cities have French names still)?

From what I read and understand, communism is just another ideology. Inherently, it seems impractical to me, but there is nothing wrong in it. But if you see today, many political statements equate communism with villainous stance.

But it seems that the communist regimes failed because of the flawed leadership (Mao, Stalin) and not because of its principles. Democracies fall too but we don't make them enemies.

So why is communism related to enemy concept? Did it happen due to Soviet Russia or Mao's China or current China?

I was discussing with a friend about the sex differences in countries like India and China and this idea stroke my mind. Was there more males or females back them? I mean, mainly in Europe during Rome and Medieval times.

I was arguing that it should be more women them men, since men tend to die more often from many different diseases, even more in a time without medicine, and also from accidents and war and things like that, like today.

But my friend argued that as China today male heir were more valued, so fraticide maybe was common. I find it hard to believe because there was no law mandating a single child. But the other argumnent, that women tend to die during childbirth, and women were just pregnant all the time was more sounding.

Kind of like how writers now and in recent history write stories surrounding what they think life will be like in the next 50+ years, are there any stories/novels written in say the 1500s that depict what their idea of the future looked like at that time? How popular were those kinds of stories if there were?

Thought I would try here before going to r/museumpros. I read an article recently about all the items kept in a museums collection but not displayed. In some cases (depending on the size of the institution) they can number in the thousands.

Has a museum ever attempted to expand to the level of being able to display everything in their collection? Especially, large institutions the size of The Smithsonian or The British Museum. If not, other than cost is there a reason to not? I would think it would bring a level of prestige countries would strive to attain- especially in a historical since like Nazi Germany.

We love her so much, but she has completely lost her memory at this point. All she can do is sing lullaby songs that she knew in her youth :(

Her children (my mother, aunt, and uncle) are not sure where she was originally born. They have narrowed it down to two possible locations in New Jersey but they are still not totally sure which of the two was her actual birthplace. We would ask her, but she has been mentally gone for years :(

I have her full Maiden name, including her middle name. I also have the first, last and middle name of her mom and dad. What is the best way to figure out where she is from? I would obviously prefer not to pay for any services, but I would probably be willing to if necessary.

In one of the Aubrey-Maturin novels by Patrick O'Brian, the eponymous Captain Aubrey, then in command of a Royal Navy frigate in the Indian Ocean sometime in 1812 or 1813, receives a letter telling him that two "livings" have fallen vacant and that he is supposed to appoint an "idoneous" person to fill them. Aubrey is able to exactly predict the "tithe" and is evidently free to choose any Anglican clergyman to fill the positions (both of which he offers to one Nathaniel Martin, who is also on the ship as a sort of unofficial assistant surgeon).

What kind of system was it that gave rise to this? Why would Aubrey have the authority to decide who should be the parson of which place, and how was it established exactly how much that parson would get? Was this actually the way the Church of England was organized?

If it matters, the Aubreys were landed gentry and Aubrey was also MP for a rotten borough.

In centuries past, pirates were a menace and a terror for seamen and coastal communities; but today, they are portrayed in sympathetic and even comedic ways.

How did the pirate image go from that of a literal terrorist to a kids cartoon?

Disclaimer: I am NOT asking about any particular example, I'm asking about the trend as a whole

There are many instances in history of rulers openly changing religion for political reasons, to the point that the way they practiced that religion would be sacrilegious today. Many "muslim" rulers drank alcohol and listened to music, many "christian" rulers still worshiped pagan gods.

In many other cases rulers seem to have converted without truly understanding what their decision implied, particularly in the americas and africa, but many pagan nordic pagan rulers seem to have thought Jesus was just one more God and "converted".

In the face of such... practicity... how could anyone take their devotion seriously?. It all seems completely absurd

I first learnt about him from the anime Vinland Saga in which he is a giant monster man. But I couldn't find any information about how tall he was anywhere. Only about the anime Thorkell. So, why was he called Thorkell The Tall and how tall was he?

So, I was considering the talk currently about voting by mail, how it there would be a ton of fraud vs. evidence that there wouldn't be, etc... Also, that I was just seeing incomplete results from Kentucky now, vs. media "calling" an election an hour after polls close, and thinking of people complaining about how it may take a week to know who won.
It made me consider that there was a moment where, at least in our mind, everyone voted in person which meant there was no fraud, and results were near-instantaneous.
But, being from Baltimore, I know the story of the death of Edgar Allen Poe, and there is a theory he was drugged/fed alcohol on the day he died and taken from voting place to voting place, which was supposedly a common fraud scheme by the political machines back then. And if you think of it, in 1812, in Manhattan, what proof could there have been that someone could legitimately vote there, hadn't voted elsewhere before, etc... And hand-counting and communicating everything must have taken time.
In short, what I'm trying to understand is how secure have elections really been throughout US history, and how long would it have taken for the candidates to know the outcome (and tied to part 1, how often did they try to refute it)?

I wonder why pyrrhus is considered such a good general. Hannibal Barca said he was the second best after alexander but he never won a war. I heard he was a bad strategist but a good tactican. But he lost a lot of battles and the ones he won, he barley left with his army intact which is where the word pyrrhic victory is from. So my question is why do people consider him a good commander when all he pretty much did was lose with a few hard fought victories (if you can call them victories).

The story behind Bernardotte becoming King of Sweden has always fascinated me. However, when I think deeply about it, it is pretty hard for me to believe that everyone in Sweden just accepted that this french dude was going to become the new King.

As in another cases, I would asume that the most natural thing would have been some kind of political unrest, even a civil war in the worst case scenario.

Why was this power transition so peaceful and easy?

Basically a book that talks about Aztecs, Incas, Mayas and other native American cultures before the Europeans came in. Also if you know, a follow up book about when the Europeans came and what happened after.

Additionally, what did European countries do differently that DID allow self-sustaining economic growth? If the Aisin Gioro Clan had thrown their full weight behind modernizing their economy, could China have successfully gained the ability to defend herself against Europe and Japan, or were there even deeper issues that hampered China’s ability to modernize? What did Japan do differently that did allow her to modernize?

I know that gold and copper can be endlessly melted down and reused - and that this took place in ancient societies, as it does today.

Are there any chains of evidence showing ancient materials being consistently repurposed?

Do we know of modern statues that contain metal from specifc ancient statues?

Is there a chance that my smartphone contains some traces of metals that once adorned Greek or Roman palaces?

I read about the difference of these 2 plague variations. Pneumonic plague is very deadly and can be transmitted through droplets : is it possible that Pneumonic plague is what spreaded so rapidly across Europe?

I recently stumbled across a reference to an Albanian civil war in 1997, something I had never heard of. I heard that it had something to do with a pyramid scheme but other than that I don’t know much about it. Could someone give an accurate explanation of this conflict?