Also, who coined it the malaise speech?

title. did they comment on the war, etc? did they even know about it?

The Senate would choose two consuls to lead the Roman army in a given year. To what extent were these consuls allowed to make decisions about how the army would be used? Would the Senate say something along of the lines of, "We're going to conquer Region X this year, and you, Consul Y, are assigned for the job"? Or was it more like, "Consul Y, you're in charge of the army this year. Go out and make a name for Rome"?

This kind of gets at a bigger question as to whether or not there was what we might call "civilian oversight" of the army. I also wonder about the difference in short-term interests and long-term interests. Maybe multiple consuls might've tried to cultivate a relationship with a foreign nation over many years, only for it to be squandered by one reckless consul. Was this ever something to be considered?

So yeah, did the Senate assign consuls with a certain policy, or did consuls pretty much do whatever they wanted?

It seems like cutting off the American’s ability to transfer ships between the Atlantic and the Pacific would have been a significant blow, and surely the Canal wasn’t as well defended as targets like Pearl Harbor.

It also seems like a much more plausible plan than the far fetched attacks the Japanese did consider. Was there a reason that it wasn’t feasible?

Was just a random thought I had. Does it have to do with the evolution of surgical practices? Or is trying for one or another a cultural choice?

I am doing significant railroad research from the period 1870-1890, and will frequently come across newspaper articles that are mistaken, misleading, or just plain wrong.
Sometimes it's clear that the intent was to deceive, as in a case of an unfinished railroad where the stock was being offered for sale, but the newspaper article implies that the line was finished.

Sometimes, it just seems like a mistake or an accident, where the writer did not have all the facts, or misread, then misreported the facts.

So, first, what is this called? And how does one professionally deal with it, knowing that some of these articles have been cited as references in other works?

Today we use a term called "Fake News" which I really dislike, and would never use in a presentation on the history of a railroad.

I have seen so much of it over the decades of my research that I now realize that much of it was probably not by accident.

I know that the newspapers of the era I am describing was the primary media outlet available to people to get news and information, so I assume there was some intentional manipulation, but I don't know enough of the underlining issues with ownerships to understand it all.

Did they manage to find similar roles in government or industries, did they downshift in their occupations or did that part of the old culture just completely die out?

Are there any remnants of the culture of the old upper and educated industrial/government etc classes in the cultural genome of modern Russia, other than purposefully copied aspects of culture, or is this cultural genome mostly or completely dominated by the new upper class culture (mostly government / party members I guess?) that was brought on by the Soviet rule and later its collapse?

And just to clarify I don’t mean biological genome, I believe talent, capability to succeed and maintain a high social status are prevalent through all social classes. So I’d assume eventually a similar upper class would form in the place of the old, but the question is, how much continuity is there between pre and post soviet upper class culture in Russia?

And upper class here means most of the well off classes that were persecuted and killed by the soviets.

In history we were told that the vikings came from Scandinavia, which consisted of Norway, Sweden and Denmark. We also know they raided countries nearby such as Ireland, Scotland, England and that they also pillaged the coasts of other countries but never settled such as Spain, France, Portugal and Egypt, but were the vikings who raided Ireland and England from the same place or were they members of different bands? For example did Norwegian vikings invade Ireland and England and Swedish vikings took Scotland or did the vikings of these three countries go to different places from eachother?

Nietzsche is genuinely my favourite philosopher of all time. He shows the most incredible authenticity of human experience and a vital expression of being alive. I love his scorn of religious belief. I love his use of aphorisms. I love his appreciation of pre-Socratic philosophers. I love his hatred of Idealism. I love his naturalistic worldview. Basically, he shows why life is worth living.

Why does Bertrand Russell describe him with such hostility and within the lineage of philosophical and historical thought which created Naziism?

assume we are talking about pirates before the 1850's. how were Chinese pirates organized ? in other places and times where there was significant pirate activity? did they have ships articles? were they democratic in voting in and out their captains ? any other organization differences between historical golden age of pirates? any areas or times that had unique pirate organization rules ?

Like did people in the 19th Century say things like:

"Oh man, I'll never forget the tragedy of the 13th of March. I lost my Uncle Ignacy that day!" (Ignacy Hryniewiecki blew himself up in 1881, killing Tsar Alexander II and 20 other people).

"Damn, I've just been on the worst cruise ever. I'll never sail with the Medusa again! The catering was horrible!" (In 1816, the French ship Méduse sank off the coast of Africa, leading to the death of 140 people. The 15 survivors, drifting aptop a raft, were forced into cannibalism until they were rescued)

Having looked up the etymology of Istanbul I was surprised to find "Constantinople" just wasn't relevant to how Istanbul came about, with Istanbul being a Turkish corruption of Stamboul from eis tḕn Pólin with it's own origin and everything.

Was that it? The two city names sound similar and it's just a coincidence they do?

For all I know, eis ten polin is just a pun in a way. Sounding close to Constantinople and referring to Constantinople, but being a different phrase itself. Just like how nobody would normally say something like "Sauce?" when asking for a source if not for the fact the two words sound similar. Do we have an answer for this? Is it just a coincidence like it really sounds? Are the two linked in any way?

(this post keeps tagging as military and war each time i post it and idk why im very sorry if that happens this time)

so, i'm taking a history class about the period from 300-1000 CE in western europe. it's our second week and we're currently on the rise of christianity within europe. i just read a statement about ascetics and their actions and i found it really strange (in a fascinating way) the nature to which self-injuring was glorified for the sake of a divine relationship. i know this question veers towards the psychological side, but i've seen questions about the nature of PTSD in the ancient world show up in the FAQ, so i think it's appropriate.

basically, my question is this: to what extent was this sort of behavior different or similar to our modern understanding of self-harm as a coping mechanism? ascetics of the early middle ages starved themselves, whipped themselves, wore hair-shirts, etc. in the name of getting closer to the big G, and this sort of behavior was, on average (at least from my understanding), glorified by the theologian and church theorists around them. how did (if we have enough sources into their psychology) these ascetics feel about the harm they did to themselves? and why was it so popular a movement (in the sense that your average christian regarded ascetics as wise, virtuous people, and not that weird hobo on the outskirts of town that you clutch your toga to yourself when you walk past him)?

And, maybe in a broader sense, how have societal perspectives on self-harm/injury/parasuicide, etc. changed from this stage, where it was okay to harm the self if it was in search of God?

In this conflict between Palestinians and Israelis on the land, is there a time line for civilizations that occupied that land through history?