Hello, Are there any famous ruins, fossils, etc. that were discovered during the 18th century or earlier that were later rediscovered and properly excavated and documented in later centuries? I remember reading that Pompeii and other ancient sites were discovered in the 17th or 18th century and then later rediscovered. thanks. Sorry for the broad question.

Its popular knowledge that the vikings were adept at adapting to local cultures and tradtions usually in the form of conversion to christianity.

Considering the lucrative nature of trade and raiding france,did people other than the norse try and copy their techniques? Did european rulers consider building their own longships for trade?

Title basically says it all, but to sum up what I know, Galileo was accused of heresy for a couple things, primarily for heliocentricism but also for finding that the other planets & the moon were not perfect spheres and had moons, reason being something along the lines of “god only bothered to detail the earth”. What did they think caused the difference in color of different parts of the moon?

So I have seen the North Koreans say this multiple times in documentaries.

They say that the US dumped insects on them as a form of biological warfare during the Korean war. I think it was to destroy crops.

So normally, I don't really trust the people who say that Unicorns exist, and that their dear leader invented the hamburger.

But I could actually make a case for this happening, considering the fact that we (US):

-Caused catastrophic damage on the civilian population during that war.

-Weaponized industrial herbicide during the Vietnam War.

What do the historians have to say?

When did this collection of cities start receiving the name Δεκάπολις? Is that even something that the sources can tell us accurately?

I do creative writing and while doing some research on Vikings found somewhere that they would sometimes take children and raise them as their own. I can’t find the site again and want to know if there were ever any instances where this happened and or what usually happened to them.

The Bible books of Ezekiel and Jeremiah describe a Babylonian invasion of Egypt led by Nebuchadnezzar. This would have occurred in the first half of the sixth century BCE.

What archaeological evidence is there for this attack? I am aware of the inscription dated to the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar which describes an Egyptian campaign, as well as the corresponding Amasis Stele in Egypt. But I am wondering particularly about actual destruction layers or occupation gaps in Egypt.

I'm on a phone so I'm sorry for my English!

I think everyone will understand what I mean, but by "what if" scenarios, I mean asking questions about how a certain event from history would have happened if X thing occurred instead of the real thing, and then trying to write a scenario aboit that.

Example: What if Dacia won the first wars against the Roman Empire? (I know this is VERY specific and not even a likely scenario to be honest)

Going with my assumptions, I think this thing almost never happens. Beside the historian working as a consultant for someone who is interested in a certain scenario (an author for example), or a potential small game between historians for fun purposes, I can't think of any other situation when this might be actually needed. Maybe in debates where one party is using false history?

I mean, many of those accused of witchcraft were clearly scapegoats of convenience or superstition, but in the same way that there are modern witches, did some men and women genuinely believe they were dabbling in strange powers?

I'm sitting here trying to troubleshoot a very broken Espresso machine wondering how the heck this style of coffee became so popular in the first place.

I'd imagine most cafe owners didn't initially want to buy more complex machinery for their businesses unless it was financially worth it.

How did espresso become so popular, and why did many Italians come to prefer it over regular coffee preparation methods?

Did the various wars Italy was a part of play into the popularity of espresso at all, given potential for less machine availability, shortages, etc?

To my understanding, Scotland became a constituent nation in 1707 following the Acts of Union and Ireland in 1800 (or 1801?). . However, I'm having trouble understanding when Wales became a constituent nation. I understand that there have been a few laws changing borders and such and that Wales got its own devolved parliament in 1998, but surely before this, Wales wasn't technically still apart of England, was it? . I suppose one way to explain my question would be like this: Welsh people, for centuries, have recognised their land as "Wales" regardless of what laws have been in effect, but when could they describe their land as being "Wales" and have it be legally correct as opposed to it being technically "England"?

Oftentimes, it seems discussion of China's tendency to break and reunify gets caught up in the borders of what makes China, how the people of the day may have variously seen it as a war of conquest among differing states or a civil war to reunite the realm and how modern lenses (or as modern as the Qing and Ming can be) influence how those past dynasties are viewed as "China" even if that's technically an inaccurate term. However, Chinese Historiography presents a rather convenient "Mandate of Heaven" that fills the gap for the sort of "Conceptual China" which fits the Xia-Shang-Zhou-Qin-etc narrative, which begs the question... do we know who came up with it? Is there an oracle bone from the Shang claiming their rightful descendance from the Xia? Did the Qin emperor write down that they were the rightful successors to the Zhou on a tablet somewhere? Or was it just made up by the Song in the History of the Five Dynasties and everyone else just rolled with it from there?

So, we know that the romans were extremely democratic for thier time, even during the imperial period, the elected senate held considerable power. Historical sources tell us that the various conquered people were treated fairly well by the romans. Take the gauls for example, the romans built cities, provided darinage and sanitation, made magnificent aqueducts, and constructed ampitheatres for them, while previously they were nothing but a bunch of tribes living in mud huts and sometimes even commiting human sacrifices, the romans gave them rights and completely accepted them in thier society, even allowing them into thier army, essentially civilising what were previously a savage and unlearned people.

Why then, did the conquered peoples revolt against rome at the first oppurtunity of destroying the empire?Some might say that living as a master in your own house is better than living as a servant in a palace. But in those times the reality for the average person was that they always had to live as a servant, either to some tribal chieftain, or to some far away emperor.

Why then did the people side with thier chieftains, who could only provide shacks and mud houses for them, and not with the romans who provided them with all the comforts of a civilised life. Why indeed, did they fight initially against romans expansion at all, while in the end they were to become citizens after being defeated after all.

What was the Eastern Churches reaction to the Crusades. From my knowledge they were appalled by the actions of the Crusaders, and many saw it as Western Church trying to get a power grab, specifically the Pope trying to increase his own Power. Byzantine leadership was also pretty appalled, all they wanted was a secular reclamation of lost lands to muslims, not a full blown crusade.

Title says it all. There’s barely anything on the web that talks about Reagan post presidency, let alone his reaction to 9/11. What did he say or think, if he thought or said anything about it.

Bonus Question: His reaction to USSR collapse? Same little amount of information on his reaction to the USSR’s collapse.

Was it the instability/interregnum in Italy? Lack of candidates who could defend the Papacy? Did the popes just change their minds about the whole emperor thing?

I had a conversation with a friend because we had two different conceptions of history (btw, none of us are historians). My conception is that every event belongs to history, so what is happening right now is part of the history. His view is that many years must pass, so we can say something belongs to history.

I saw that one of the rules of this subreddit is that events of discussion must be at least 20 years old, so no modern event is discussed. Is this because history is not such if it's not at least 20 years old (therefore not studied by historians), or just a rule to maintain this sub civil and avoid modern controversies?