What was the point? Was it an anonymity thing, intimidation etc.

From what we know, Honoria and her brother Valentinian III weren't on the best of terms, since he was forcing her into a marriage. One would assume she was being at least under surveillance. Even if that wasn't the case, how was she able to communicate with the empire's greatest enemy without anyone noticing, at least at first?

I can easily recall a number of major finds from the 1800s through the 1940s. For instance: The Dead Sea Scrolls (first discovered 1946), The Nag Hammadi texts (1945), the Chu Silk Manuscript (1930s), The Liber Linteus (discovered 1849, identified as Etruscan in 1891), The Oxyrhynchus Papyri (1896), the Dunhuang Manuscripts (1900), etc.

​

But curiously I’m having trouble of thinking of any major ancient manuscripts that were discovered since then. Am I just misinformed about this, or has there been a decrease in the number of discoveries? I would have assumed that there would be vastly more discoveries made because of modern technology and archaeology techniques.

I've read quite a bit how after WWII West German politics and culture created a (largely false) image of a German army that was largely separate from and not implicated in the vast crimes of the Nazis. My understanding is that this was largely a reaction to the Cold War, former officers trying to rehabilitate their image, and a voting public that would rather forget. Many members of the army were granted commutations or amnesty in the 1950's. To what extent did this attitude exist in East Germany at the time? Did DDR officials try to draw a distinction between "normal" Germans and Nazis like people in the West did. If so, what form did this messaging take? Did the Soviets try to push this message or counteract it? Did a similar amnesty take place in the East?

Was there a medieval equivalent to selling counterfeit jeans? Or anything like an early MLM? Trading magic beans for cows? I'm thinking of people pretending to be running legitimate businesses, but actually just ripping people off.

If such practices existed, what was their relation to law enforcement? If I was ripped off by a scam artist, would I have any hope of getting my money back?

Operation Downfall was a proposed Military invasion of the Home Islands of Japan by the United States, with limited help from Britain. It's hard to determine exactly how many casualties were expected, but 500,000 Purple Hearts (US medals given to every wounded/dead soldier) medals were produced for the occasion. Estimates ranged from about 500,000 to 1 million casualties on the US side. Yet in the 65 years following the end of WW2, the US military STILL had not suffered 500,000 casualties overall, despite the Korean and Vietnam Wars. Considering public support for the Vietnam War in the US was a serious, ongoing issue, I would imagine the US public wouldn't support 500k casualties just because of Pearl Harbor.

Despite this, I have never heard a word uttered anywhere about the US Public not supporting the campaign. Every documentary, every book and every class in school has presented it as a given that Americans considered it a 'necessary sacrifice'. I have heard that the US considered blockading the Home Islands indefinitely to get Japan to surrender, but they didn't because "it would take too long and the public would lose patience". What am I missing here? Why did Americans have 0 problem with Operation Downfall and made a giant fuss about Vietnam?

So, I'm currently a Junior in High school and I've thought a lot about my future. Over the course of my life, I've narrowed down my interests to two things. History and Performing Arts. Both are very hard career-wise I understand but hey, I'm shooting for the stars here.

I'm still insanely clueless about potential careers however and I want a solid plan. I'm mostly interested in Ancient Greek, Roman and Egyptian history (more obsessed really) and I'm not sure how far an Archeology major could get me this way. I was also thinking about a PHd but is it really worth it?

I'm just scared that if I go down this path I'll be stuck doing the less interesting things and get bored and I would rather not have that happen. I love history either way but I don't wanna sit in a room for months on end just doing research. I'd like to go to places. (Pompeii for example) as childish as it sounds. I want to be out in the field, analyzing, recording, studying. It seems so exciting. (though I know it requires a lot of moolah)

History has been a huge interest for me ever since I was little (the straight As I get in all my classes prove so, even the boring AP US) I've also been narrowing down my quite long University list, so hopefully things work out for me.

Does anyone have any advice for me if I do go this route? I'm kind of leaning more towards it at this point.

I was reading a book recently that made it seem like they mostly stumbled into stuff, or had low level impacts on the war.

100% inspired by Crusader Kings 2 I'm somewhat sorry to say, and I suspect we might not have any sources on it. But I'm wondering if any of the Pagan hold outs or kings in Scandinavia tried to 'reform' the older ways as Christianity spread north.

Other background: I'm aware that the Communications Blackout did exist (and I believe it's now solved by radioing from the re-entering module to a satellite which repeats it down to Earth.)

Also, what happened the LM Aquarius? I presume she ended up de-orbiting and burnt up somewhere or other, a sad fate for such a vital part of Apollo 13's survival.

I'm thinking especially of Prussia before the Seven Years' War, where it seems there had been a push to recruit men into the army as early as April 1756 if not before, over four months before Prussia invaded Saxony at the end of August, suggesting that the oncoming war was very much expected. Would young men have retaliated by rushing to get married as quickly as possible to exclude themselves from the recruitment pool? Would the authorities clamp down on these last-minute arrangements? What would happen to the brides in such arrangements?

I know the raid was a morale booster, but I keep seeing claims that the raid "pulled multiple veteran Japanese front-line fighter squadrons" back to the home islands and had a direct impact in America's victory at Midway. Are these claims actually substantiated or just a myth?

Alternatively/additionally, if I am commonly known as Ibn Yusuf after my father or even Ibn Ibrahim after my great-grandfather, is this a moniker I would have had from birth? How would those around me choose whom to call me after, and would this change once I’ve had my own son?

From what little I know of history, same sex couples and sex happened in Ancient Rome and this was accepted. When did it change to the opinion that same sex couples/sex was wrong and why? Was it due to the Christian bible? Was it later in history? What changed so that in lots of countries laws were introduced that said it was illegal?

The one with Darwin, Huxley, Hooker, Lubbock, Spencer, etc.?

Right now I have Afaf Lutfi Al-Sayyid Marsot - Egypt in the Reign of Muhammad Ali-Cambridge University Press (1984) in mind but I was wondering if there is anything better and more recent

I recently read in Wikipedia that the figure Tanit was "identified" with another deity Astarte, whom the Carthaginians inherited from Phoenician religion, therefore I wonder was she an adaptation of Astarte/Ashtart (or perhaps the same deity worshipped in another name and possessed different attributes after centuries) who was herself a form of the Mesopotamian deity Inanna/Ishtar?

Also, Inanna was portrayed as having both solar and lunar aspects, which led me to the conclusion that Carthaginians split the deity's character into two, and apparently their religious system was influenced by eastern Semitic culture or something more ancient such as Sumerian texts...while on the other hand, could it be that Astarte had solar aspects within Canaanite beliefs as well?

Note: I've been posting these sorts of question here mainly because Wikipedia and other sites simply lack the answers I'm searching for, they're mostly...too vague regarding texts.

I’m just interested. The myths surrounding generals are often shakey. Like grant and the alcoholism. So did Sherman condone the civilian deaths?

Why did Napoleon not kill Joseph Fouchet the first time Fouchet was caught betraying him? Fouchet was a dangerous man and knew all of Napoleon’s secrets. How could he possibly be more useful alive than dead?