Hey everyone. I recently started college and the first assignment that I have is on the Epic of Gilgamesh.

The class required "The Norton Anthology|World Literature, versions 1&2" for required texts, and that is where we are to read The Epic of Gilgamesh.

I have the book, and reading along with that, and trying to also do work online and trying to view the digital texts, but it appears that there are multiple versions and formats of the Epic of Gilgamesh?

I've been familiar with the story of Gilgamesh for a while now, as well as the Sumerian Tablets, Anu, Enki, Enlil, etc. and there's things in this "Norton's" version that I don't like and very conflicting with what I already know.

Does anybody know of different variations or adaptations of English translated Epic's? I'm aware that it's an ancient story adapted and changed by cultures all over the world since the history of it's creation, but I'm talking about just widely publicized English versions.

Thanks in advance

I found a picture of a relative who is wearing a very distinct dress in the 1860s roughly. Some think it's due to her having NA ancestry. However, someone said it was a thing for women to use their husband's military uniforms to incorporate into their dresses. I was curious if anyone could shed any light on this? This is not meant to offend anyone, I am doing genealogy and am trying to get only the facts. Thank you.

The title "Proconsul" during the Roman Republic, while etymologically translating to "one acting", was seemingly held exclusively by former consuls. This led to not only a personal misunderstanding regarding the use of the Latin word "pro" as a prefix, but also a further assumption/potential misconception that there would, by extension, exist a number of sitting senators who never reached the height of consul - but did serve as quaestors, aediles, and praetors, and would thus be technically be propraetors, proaediles, and proquaestors.

While I can think of a couple examples of the word "propraetor" (I want to say in Livy?), I cannot think of any examples or "proaedile" of "proquaestor" in my (very limited) current readings. Also, given that the term might not necessarily refer to former holders of the title but, more pedantically, to those acting on behalf of the current title-holder; I may be limiting myself by assuming they are inherently of senatorial rank.

Bonus Question Is my confusion on this subject related to changes made during Sulla's administration?

When the American Revolution happened, 13 British colonies declared independence. There were other British colonies in North America — namely in Canada — that did not join them. Were these other colonies politically distinct from the thirteen American colonies in any way? Did they have some other administrative status that made them less antagonized by the Stamp and Tea Acts? Did the UK administer them more directly? Was there any kind of border that distinguished them?

Hi Reddit,

My dad and I are going through the process of tracing my grandfather’s troop movements throughout Europe during WW2. Before he passed away, my grandad had not spoken about the details of his service to anyone in our family so we are working off of very limited information in this search.

What we know -

His name, 3rd Army - Patton, PO Valley Campaign, Ended up in Bavaria, Germany.

Any suggestions on how to go about our search or resources available would be greatly appreciated. Thanks again.

My understanding is that Makedon was just a client state of the Achaemenid Empire, located at its far western extremity, and on another continent. Most Achaemenid satrapies are several times larger than this Greek kingdom (such as Egypt) in size and probably also population. How was it at all possible for Makedon to achieve such a feat? Even if Alexander were the most brilliant of generals, this result seems absurd

Was the US willing to nuke Japan out of existence? Was there a limit of nukes the us would use?

The question of “Was the US dropping the atomic bombs on Japan justifiable?” is a question that we have all heard at some point. I hear both sides of the argument. What I want to know is what is the truth behind Japan’s decision to surrender. Were they truly on the verge of surrendering before the US dropped the atomic bombs or because of their culture they had no intentions on surrendering, so dropping the bombs was necessary to save both Japanese and American lives. I just want to know the truth. Also, how many bombs did the US have planned? I read somewhere that the US had a third bomb ready and more in development. Is that true?

The Assyrians fell to the Medo-Babylonian forces in stages, with their last capital city being Harran. Harran was seized in 610BCE, 54 years before Nabonidus became king. Crown prince Ashur-uballit fled to Egypt, and attempted to retake Harran in 609BCE but was repulsed.

This is the end of the political data I can find. From the maps made of the Neo-Babylonian territory, it seems to be accepted that Harran became a part of the Babylonian empire, but various sources also call it a Median city. Nabonidus's hesitation to complete restoration works on the temple to Sin there certainly seems to imply that it was not considered a safe zone, although he was content to march beyond it to Cilicia to put down a rebellion there in the third year of his reign.

Are there any economic tablets from Harran inscribed as being written during the reigns of the Neo-Babylonian kings? Not the famous Harran Stele's of Nabonidus, but just simple clay tablets with nothing whatsoever to do with anything important. About land tax, or payments of barley, that happen to helpfully date themselves at the bottom as '4th year of Nebuchadnezzar', or Neriglissar or any other.

It should be a simple thing to find out, but most of these boring texts don't get uploaded online, possibly because they're so dull nobody translates them at all and they're just sitting in a pile.

If anyone happens to know, I'd be curious to get confirmation that post-Assyrian Harran was a Babylonian state, and not a Median one.

I read the below on Akbars wiki page and seems absurd to me. Why would he have even cared? This feels like myth to me.

To defend his stance that speech arose from hearing, he carried out a language deprivation experiment, and had children raised in isolation, not allowed to be spoken to, and pointed out that as they grew older, they remained mute.

Many poisonous frogs in South America have articles like “the poison in this one frog is deadly enough to kill a hundred men” but there shouldn’t have been any evolutionary pressure to become that poisonous. Nothing especially large was eating frogs that would require them to become so poisonous. Soo is there any evidence of breeding progressively poisonous frogs for their poison for arrow heads? If that was even a real practice. Hopefully this is the correct subreddit. Thanks in advance.

I have been curious about the Vice Presidency, and as I read, I notice a pattern. Presidential candidates from the Midwest would choose (or have chosen for him) New Yorkers, but everyone else seemed to want Hoosiers to balance the ticket. Indiana was the swingiest of the Midwestern states, of course, but it isn't especially large. And one would think the pattern had stopped after Thomas Marshall, but along comes Dan Quayle and Mike Pence in more modern times. Is there something in the water that nourishes those at the bottom of the Presidential ticket?

Was this pattern remarked upon and did it cause any controversy?

As we know, Ancient Egyptian civilisation lasted unfathomably long, over 3000 years in total from the time of the first Pharaoh to the last. Common ways you see this put into perspective are the following:

• Cleopatra VII lived closer to today than she did to the building of the Pyramids.

• Mammoths were still alive when the Pyramids were built.

So I ask you - what did Egyptians, both rulers and common folk, know of their history and the events in it long after they had happened? We know that they were meticulous record-keepers from the beginning, and that their religion hardly changed up until its extinction in the Roman era. So is it possible that the Egyptians of the Roman era would know the purpose of and the story behind the Great Pyramids, or Abu Simbel, or Amarna?

I also wonder if there have been any comprehensive histories discovered on tablet or papyrus, that would prove that Egyptians (at least elites) knew of what would be ancient history to them, such as Narmer and the early dynasties.

Answers and discussion should be interesting, thanks!

I understand they were used in the American Civil War, but how did both ships cope against each other

My understanding was that cannons in 16th century Europe caused an arms race between more modern fortifications and artillery (that the latter eventually won) which had a significant impact on the European early modern world.

I read a claim that cannons of roughly equal power existed in China during the same time - but that 16th century Chinese castle walls were thicker, and the cannons had no significant impact on warfare during the period. Can this really be true?