Of course, the French Kingdom was a staunch ally of the US during the American Revolution, and the subsequent French Revolution had its supporters amongst American politicians (i.e. Thomas Jefferson), but when Napoleon rose to power and proclaimed the French Empire did American public opinion shift against France when it went about conquering Europe?

Side question: Where does it actually come from? It’s often listed as the coronation of Clovis in the 6th century, but some sources (not very trustworthy ones mind you) claim that the symbol dates back older than that.

How come people in the past could sculpt realistic statues but couldn't draw or paint? I mean stuff you see that looks like a child did it. Pictures of kings and gods and animals all over the world had bizarre stunted and anatomically wrong poses and arrangements. But they could and did make realistic statues? I thought drawing a model was the first step in sculpting? It just seems to me that roman, Egyptian, early European art all looks bad. But the same people made sculptures that were "photo-realistic"ish for lack of a better term.

It's just as the title say. Obviously compared to today's moral standards he and admittedly most historical figures were not good. However, there is a lot of controversy around Cromwells massacre of the Irish and those against him have claimed that even for the time this was bad. Although by my understanding, there are arguments supporting him too, claiming that the accusations against his actions as 'ethnic cleansing' to be exagerrations. So essentially what I'm asking is for someone to lay down all the facts.

In 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue. But why didn't the Romans, in all their centuries of expansion, ever make it that far. Was their some particular technology that enabled Columbus to make the journey that the Roman's (or any ancient European civ) didn't have?

was there really so little difference in the status of those backgrounds? were her criticisms a case of 'sexism masking policy objections'?

The USSR fell apart in 1991 with a GDP of around $10,000 per capita PPP, and has reached about $30,000 per capita PPP today after stagnating throughout the 1990s.

​

I wonder whether it was communism that caused the USSR to fall apart? The communist ideology, as it was practiced in the USSR, included a centrally planned command economy and the lack of civil and political freedoms that was entailed under the Soviets. Perhaps those things caused the failure of the USSR (although the lack of political freedoms hasn't stopped the PRC).

​

On the other hand, perhaps competing with the US, with its head-start advantage from the get-go was what wore out the economy and caused the political union to fail in the end. The US had an economic advantage from the beginning, in 1917, when the Soviets took over Tsarist Russia. The cold war was expensive, what with the space program and the nuclear arsenal the USSR built up and all the other costs of competing.

​

What do we know about the cause of the fall of the USSR and whether it can be attributed to the socialist system or to competition with a competitor who was economically and technologically more advanced from the beginning?

I'm currently playing Assassin's Creed Origins which is set in the 49 BC, with the reign of Cleopatra (which you hel to get the throne). And one of the hint text you get during the load screen says that Cleopatra was the only ruler that learn Egyptian the language of the 7 million citizens of the realm.

So if the Egyptian was the common language, were there any other languages spoken in the realm? And with what purpose?

While reading the (French) wikipedia page about the Burgundian Wars in the 1470's, it is said that Duke Charles of Burgundy declared himself freed from the authority of the King of France. In 1473, Duke Charles and Emperor Frederic III of the HRE met at Trèves, and the latter accepted to let Charles use his possessions within the Empire to create his own kingdom (if I understood correctly).

Finally, it says that Frederic III broke the negotiations and fled the night before the coronation, along with his son Maximilian who was supposed to marry Mary of Burgundy to seal the deal. This event cancelled the coronation and crushed Charles dreams of a united Burgundian Kingdom

Unfortunately, the article does not explain the reasons that lead Frederic III to break the negotiations and flee. What happened between the two men? What events led to the Emperor doing such a dick move and run away as Charles was about to be crowned?

I've been curious about how those cultures saw homosexuality as compared to what the Greeks and Romans. I have Google searcgh but nothing of sustance comes up. Does anyone has knowledge about this?

Thank you in advance

So I've heard arguments for and against Truman using atomic weaponry on Japan. On the for side I've heard that the alternative was a long and bloody land war that would've have devastated Japan on a national scale, and against I've heard it was to intimidate the Soviets. Which side has the stronger argument?

Fromy understanding, the USSR had a heavy involvement in ensuring the Republican side did not stray too far left in order to ensure the "revolt" did turn into a full blown worker revolution. This, however, seems to be directly contradictory to the idea that for communism to succeed it needed international support, and thus against the core of the URSS, so, I would like to know if that is the full story or if it is more nuanced.

Hello I was browsing through warfare in antiquity by hand delbruck book 3 chapter 2 where it spams about Alexander and Persia, I have just opened the book to that book and am interested in the numbers of the armies delbruck writes, especially the Persians as not having any education in that era/history the numbers you usually hear the Persians are in the hundreds of thousands in number. How accurate are delbrucks number that put the Persians at an equal or disadvantaged number in the battle especially the battle on the granicus, also I very much like the way the author writes and describes the history so far, am I correct in thinking that and if true does delbruck continue that in in his other books?

I’m researching my family genealogy. I have evidence my ancestors (great-grandpa, wife and kids) participated in the great Black migration. The stories all make it sound like my ancestors just picked up and left. I’ve listened to documentaries saying sharecropping was basically slavery of another kind, and sharecroppers could be lynched if they left the land. However, the lynching story I heard (YouTube documentary) took place in Louisiana. In South Carolina, how hard would my ancestors have it?

In all of my readings (nonfiction but also historical fiction, etc) I see a lot of different representations of women’s hair and especially their head coverings. I’d like to know to what extent it had to do with class and wealth, modesty and religion, and just the change of social norms over the centuries. I know this is a broad period of time, but I would love to know how it evolved over this long period. If I had to specify, the period I am most interested in would probably be the War of the Roses and Tudor periods.

I know that there’s no single evidence of the Exodus happening. However, isn’t absence of evidence not necessarily a claim without evidence? Weren’t there corroborate evidence because people at the times rarely record what was happening at the time? Are there any evidences that conflict with the claims of Exodus?

Are there events and/or experiences in our collective memory that when we heard John Williams's score for Star Wars in the '70s made us think "Yeah, that's what space sounds like" ?

Would that music have sounded like space without the context of the Space Race and the Cold War, with the moon landing in everyone's recent memory?