Hi, could anyone point me in the direction of any articles, papers, or books discussing the population of Rome during the early years of the republic or during the days of the kings. I understand that Rome was sacked in 390 BCE and thus many important records were lost so the earliest reliable records will have to do. I've done a fair bit of searching but I've only found papers discussing Rome's population in the late republic and into the Imperial era.

Why didn’t countries in Asia just build factories and guns to compete with the west? I’ll admit I slept through a lot of the class since I had it first period but I’m in AP euro and we learned that Otto got fucked since he had open market policies and when Europe was pumping out goods with colonial resources and manufactorie his local traders were outcompeted and unemployment skyrocketed. Like in AP US history they tell us we just stole the factory model from GB even though he tried to hide it, why didn’t other countries do that? And why didn’t Asian countries try to colonize if they knew about the new world? And why were they lacking in military tech, why couldn’t they just capture a dude and get the tactics from him or kill a dude and reverse engineer his stuff. Like the arabs learned paper making from the Chinese after the battle of talas river and richtugese monks smuggled silk works out of China in their monk canes right

I just finished reading the book of Enoch and found to be really interesting and it seems to be like a prologue to the the book of Genesis and the bible. Upon reading it seems like Enoch was visited by Aliens but I don't want to just leave it at that if so I would just watch Ancient Aliens on History channel.

Are there any texts that validate the events that transpired in the book of Enoch ? Why was this book so forgotten by history ? How can we interpret Enoch's story to understand what was really happening or if it happened at all ?

The Human Race has existed for about 300,000 years, not including all of the other pre-hominids that predated Humans. Why exactly did Humans only progress into civilization only 5000 years ago? That's some extreme progress in a short amount of time while the other 295,000 years virtually nothing happened. Anything considered "ancient" is like 2000 years or only 1000 years ago. Why did Humans progress SO fast in a short amount of time while the other 295,000 years Humans didn't as much?

As far as I understand that it was more of a defence race between Germany and French as both sides rapidly armed and fortified their side of the Maginot line.

But why not go further south to borders Switzerland? Why a German flank wasn't expected from there as ocupation/invasion of Switzerland was a possible option for German Blitzkreig?

About the Belgium fortifications; my understanding is that French expected the fortifications and defensive measurements to be strong enough to hold Germans back or at least slow them down.

Why did French relied on Belgian defences in such confidency?

I’ve been wanting to read a book about the history of the Roman Empire, and the most heavily recommended one I saw was The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon. Yet this book focuses more on just the second half of the Roman Empire and its fall, rather than the full history.

Are there any books/book series that explains the entire history of Rome, from the founding to the fall in the 15th century that you all might recommend?

The Bosnian Army is usually portrayed as being primarily Muslim in the Yugoslav Breakup Wars, and this is depicted as having lead to the mistreatment of them at the hands of the Serbs. A little over half Bosnia’s population is Muslim, with close to half of it being Christian. Did Bosnians and Christians fight side by side against the Serbs during the war, did they fight in separate all Christian or all Muslim units or did most Christian Bosnians side with the Serbs?

I was told this but can’t source it but it certainly does explain why Muslims and Jews don’t eat pork and why they consider it to be a “dirty” animal: pigs were used to clean up/process dead bodies. After big battles, lots of dead bodies would be lying around which can spread disease quickly. The solution was to have pigs eat those bodies. Certain religious groups were not too keen on the fact that, by eating pigs, people were indirectly eating other people.

I know they always say the no pigs thing is because they roll around in their own poop all of the time but pigs are hardly the only farm animals that do that.

Hello, everyone! I apologize in advance if this is not the sub for this kind of post, but I really need some help and was hoping some of you might be able to assist me.

TL;DR:

When a major in Art History is not an option, which major would be a better foundation to become an art historian: Anthropology or History?

Context:

I’m a third-year Astrophysics major, and over the course of a little more than a year and through various experiences since having started college, I have come to realize that the career I actually and really want to pursue is Art History. However, there are many factors I think I must take into account before making any decisions or taking any action.

Firstly, I do not want to drop out of Astrophysics and change my major, mainly because I don’t like the idea of having wasted 2+ years of my life. It is for this reason that I am considering getting a double degree (i.e. completing my current studies while majoring in an art-related field). Sadly, in the country where I live, there are no universities or colleges (including the one I currently attend) that offer Art History at the undergraduate level. For this reason, I’m considering majoring in a field related to Art History and subsequently pursuing a graduate degree in Art History (or a sufficiently related subfield).

For this, there are two available majors that I regard as sufficiently adequate to serve as a foundation for a graduate degree in Art History: Anthropology and History.

The problem is I just don’t know which is the better option. While I feel like getting a Bachelor’s in History would provide me with an adequate foundation, I also think it might be a little too broad a major. As far as getting a major in Anthropology is concerned, I’m aware that the approach Anthropology takes on Art differs very much from the one History takes; however, I think majoring in Anthropology can pose an attractive prospect if we consider a career path in Cultural Astronomy or Archaeoastronomy* (which I presume are fields somewhat related to Art History).

*At the university I attend, Anthropology majors can choose between a concentration in Sociocultural Anthropology and Archaeology.

Having said all this, which do you believe to be the better option for my situation: Anthropology or History?

Thanks in advance <3

This question was discussed in my class today and I was wondering if anyone could elaborate on this. I was wondering if the Ancient Greeks ran into any problems when they used this method.

I've heard that a lot of the Border states didn't support the war and generally continued trading with Canada/Britain. What kind of a situation was that like?

Was Spain blamed for the Spanish Flu of 1919? Did the Spanish Flu even originate in Spain? How did viral research work in 1919? Were there researchers trying to track down the source or is that a modern phenomenon?

Architecture mathematics even philosophy are derived from Egypt and near east, so what is original from Greece?

I’ve always wondered if it was some sort of religious or cultural mild eastern hat that was just fashionable or if it has a more important meaning behind it.

In aware of that white settlement wasn't legal in the "unassigned" region of Oklahoma until 1889, but what about the "neutral strip" that makes up the Oklahoma panhandle? Was it completely vacant? Was it hunting grounds for the natives as well as whites in the neighboring states? Even if it was illegal for whites (and natives) to settle there, are there any known cases of illegal settlement?

It seems like almost every other European empire (Spain, Portugal, France, The Netherlands, etc) left behind nothing but poverty stricken third countries. Only British colonies like the US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand achieved strong development after their colonial statuses. Even former British colonies that are classified as developing do better than their neighbors. Just compare South Africa and Nigeria to the rest of Africa.

Why have Britain's former colonies done so well whereas most (if not all) other former European colonies are still struggling?

I just want to ask how much has Rommel believed in the nazi ideology.

was he leading the troops because he despised jews and thought that Germany is superior or was he just a loyalist fighting for what he thinks is right ?