I was wondering why there seems to be a great amount taught on Democracy especially in the USA, which is strange because the USA is a Republic and most citizens are even ignorant of that, and not much else? Why don’t we Lecture, Debate, and discuss about Republics, Direct Democracy, Aristocracy and Polity defined by Aristotle, Democracy as a degenerate form of government and Polity the more virtuous, Monarchy and its difference to Dictatorship, the original idea of a Dictatorship in Ancient Rome...Why do we seem to only focus on the Tag or Hot button word of Democracy and completely reject, ignore, or pass over the other systems? Doesn’t discussion promote greater understanding and further development? Wouldn’t education, especially political education, be better off and the graduates as well if they weren’t ignorant of other systems?

From my limited knowledge of Canadian history, Nova Scotia was controlled by the British and is not far from the rest of the British North American colonies. I also understand it was populated by planters who moved from New England, as well as French settlers. Since New Englanders and the French were both generally pro-revolution, why did the Nova Scotians stay with the British after the war? Also, had they participated in Continental Congresses prior to the American Revolution?

I saw the most recent episode of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, and there he highlights some of the serious problems with the government handling of the pandemic in prison populations. That got me wonder what policies were instituted, if any, during the plagues and pandemics I mentioned. Did they take any actions or did they merely let the prisoners languish?

I have some basic knowledge of Ancient Egyptian Culture, but I am looking for a book that dives deep into the REAL important history of our ancestors. I want to get a better understanding of our history of religion, the gods, the universe, spirituality, etc.

I read in Simon Schama's "The Story of the Jews" that the word "ghetto" derives from a Venetian word for "foundry" because the first Jewish quarter established in Venice in 1516 was built over an old foundry district.

Was this first ghetto in Venice actually built over a foundry district? What would a foundry be like in 1516 anyway? Would a foundry from that time period pollute the air, soil, or water, or create hazardous byproducts? Could this have possibly impacted the health of the future Jewish residents? Was the first ghetto an industrial wasteland? Would the people of Venice and the Jews in the ghetto know about things like pollution from industrial processes?

This may be a little speculative, but I'm fascinated with the idea that label executives of the 50s and early 60s may have believed that guitar groups were not the way of the future. Especially when guitar groups are the biggest presence in rock music today.

What kind of music was expected to become popular during the early days of The Beatles?

Where and when did they live? What were their contributions? Does any of their work still survive? Why don't they seem to be as well known as their Eastern counterparts?

I'm not sure if this is necessarily the place to ask this question, since it pertains more to how history is documented than any historical event in particular, but it seemed like the best fit, and if anybody would know the answer to this question, it's probably the people who study history at a high academic/professional level.

When history is taught and shared (at least in the USA where I live), many historical figures are referred to by translated versions of their names, rather than their actual names. This is evident in cases like Christopher Columbus or (less historical, arguably) Jesus.

I recognize that it may come down to things like ease of pronunciation and spelling, but Christopher Columbus had a name that he was known by, that he knew himself by, and it wasn't Christopher Columbus. I could understand changing the spelling to be more phonetic to a target audience, but changing his name altogether to the English equivalent makes less sense to me. Is there a deeper reason for translating names in this manner, or is it merely convenience?

From Wikipedia:

The Information Research Department (IRD) was a propaganda unit set up by the Labour government in 1948 at the Foreign Office, after the start of the Cold War.

Celia Kirwan, a close friend of Orwell who had just started working as Robert Conquest's assistant at the IRD, visited Orwell at a sanatorium where he was being treated for tuberculosis in March 1949.[2] Orwell wrote a list of names of persons he considered sympathetic to Stalinism and therefore unsuitable as writers for the Department, and enclosed it in a letter to Kirwan.[1] The list became public in 2003.[3]

How damaging was this list to the careers and influence of the people it named? Was it seen only by Kirwin, the IRD, or was it shared to the British Intelligence Apparatus as a whole (or even beyond)?

From all the media I’ve taken in of them, they were absolutely jacked. How did they get so strong? It makes sense how people like the Vikings and Celts were such good warriors, since they were also doing physical labor, but from what I’ve heard the Spartans, or at least the rich ones, were simply warriors. What we’re they doing to get so strong? My first guess is pushups and shit like that, but I honestly don’t know. Btw everything I know about history and shit likes this comes from movies and tv shows, so I might be painfully ignorant.

Edit: my apologies that was clearly meant to say “pre-war.” Apple has been a little aggressive with text corrections lately!

It seems to me that from a labor economics point of view a lot of white southerners probably had a hard time “competing” with slave labor and might have been opposed to the practice, but at the same time I’d be more or less unsurprised to hear that poor whites in south bought the racial superiority message to a point where they never really opposed slavery.

As far I know, there's evidences that some of the saints like St. Patrick, Nicholas, and even George existed. But the only thing that got me very curious is that how did these people became huge and how were the process of their cults and legends went (ez. St. Geroge and the Dragon, Nicholas was mentioned to have a cult around him before he turned Santa Claus, etc).

Something that's always puzzled me is how and why the HRE was an elective monarchy. Is there some kind of precedent from pre-Carolingian times or is it something that happened during the course of the empire itself? From what I understand, monarch would try their damnedest to get their sons elected as their successors (Salian dynasty, Hapsburgs, etc), but why bother with elective nature at that point? Does it have something to do with the decentralization of the Empire?

I have been curious about this topic in the past, and I have also wondered about modern wars as well - if there are laws against killing/attacking occupying forces. The actor would of course risk a counter-attack, but if they made it out of that, would there be investigation/prosecution if the attack was otherwise unprovoked?

The crusaders had Egypt for a short while when amalric was king of Jerusalem (they might have had it during sometime else, I am noy aware) , people have asked about different civilizations's view on the pyramids but I haven't seen one about the crusaders. What did they think of it? Did they write about them? Attach some sort of holy value to them? Or tried to destroy them?