How did they describe the effects back then? Was there some way they tried to treat it or was it just completely ignored and accepted by those around them?

I’ve read various articles online arguing Elagabalus was a classical era, western example of a transgender individual. I’d like to see some proper documentation and sources concerning their lifestyle, and if it was necessarily altered post-assassination to become more outlandish/decadent.

Thanks pals.

I watched a TV special from 1987 where a teenager who plays classical violin "goes punk" (creative application of the word), and it has me wondering- if you were a white, urban professional rich enough to send your kids to college prep school and conservative enough to have a child in a young men's republican club, what would you listen to? The parents are shown to consider more rock-type music to be "pure noise," however considering their situation Country music seems unlikely. So, in absence of the popular music radio, what would they listen to?

Send here from r/history

I'm a current final year undergraduate at an Australian university who is majoring in Modern History. To major in it, you need to complete 8 subjects. I have done 7, and will do the last one in my final semester at university.

Needless to say, the experience has not been positive. Sure- there were problems with bias, poor organisation, bad teachers, nasty behaviour and political slants, but as this subreddit has rules against current politics and soapboxing, I won't go into them. But the main problem was that I never felt I was doing history right. My marks aren't spectacular. I've gotten 50% in essays, and in others, high distinctions. This creates a confusing mentality, and the marker's feedback only goes so far.

I initally majored in modern history because I was passionate, and had brimming questions. Why would a society pick a dictator over the fruits of liberty? Can we compare St. Thomas Aquinas' theory of warfare to modern conflicts and terrorism? Was the Tokyo firebombing in WWII a war crime?

So... I don't have the answers, but I want to. And that requires further inquiry and research. I believe that we should study history, that society is better when we pay attention to the past. You could argue that its a duty. But I don't want to do 'incorrect' history, I don't want to ask 'stupid' questions*. And that's stopping me from asking historical questions that are worth asking.

What has helped ease my tension is bringing in perspectives from other fields, mainly psychology, war studies, literature, statistics and philosophy. For the record: I don't think studying history was a waste of time. I learned the importance of empirical data, and forming arguments. I also realised that I love military and imperial history, and have a developing interest in China & Japan. But I keep thinking that I'm not good enough to not only study those countries, but also form arguments. Because of that, my love of history has dwindled. I'm not borrowing books, watching documentaries or anything like that anymore. And that makes me sad.

So, any advice on how to 'reignite' my love of history? How to gain confidence skills in making historical arguments?

Thank you.

*My 'stupid' questions are called that not because of any 'controversy' they may spark, but because they are about 'minor' things. I find the concept of 'The Doomsday Clock' absolutely fascinating. I'm also drawn to 'speculative history'- what if the French Revolution never happened? Apparently that's a silly question that's not worth asking.

What kind of metrics do you use (especially given the differential value ascribed to certain items or trade goods by different societies)? For more ancient civilizations, what archaeological evidence would you look for to indicate societal wealth and how could you extrapolate these findings to a broader population?

I've been reading Paperbacks from Hell, which is a history of horror fiction from the 70s and 80's.

Author Grady Hendrix comments on the Thor Power Tool case in 1979 and its impact on the paperback industry.

Essentially he explains that publishers previously could hold large amounts of stock for extended periods. They could benefit from selling warehoused stock at full cover value while also writing off a portion of its value for tax purposes, meaning that it was financially viable to store large quantities of paperbacks despite middling sales over a long period of time.

The outcome of the case meant that publishers were forced to value their stocks at full cover price for tax purposes, and as a result new books had to hit blockbuster numbers over a period of 6 weeks in order to be financially viable. He goes on to discuss marketing teams, embossed covers and such which we associate with 80's horror fiction.

It seems to be that this must be extremely relevant to day to day life. I imagine as a result for example that smaller publishing companies would become unviable, that publishers would take fewer risks, that we would see a tightening of authors' access to publishers, that you could walk in to a used bookstore and see the impact of the decision like the impact of a drought on a tree ring, and so forth.

It's a bit of a long shot, but is anyone well placed to discuss the impact of this decision in better detail?

We hear much of the lengths Hannibal went to so that southern Italian city-states would defect to the Carthaginian side, yet little of his attempts to win over the Etrurians; after his army left Etruria after the battle of lake Trasimene, I’m unaware of him ever entering the area again.

Etruria was one of the last Italian regions to be fully controlled by Rome, was wealthy and urbanized, had suitable ports and winter quarters for Hannibal's army, had close historical, cultural, and economic toes with Carthage, and was in prime position to link up with reinforcements from Iberia and Cisalpine Gaul. Why did Hannibal dismiss Etruria and instead prioritize southern Italy?

Does anyone know where i can read it?

Just curious as it was always the name for the capitals at the time of the Byzantine Empire and Ottoman Empire just curious on why Turkey changed it when Carthage has still kept its name.

After Anglo-Saxons took over modern day England I know the majority of the people there before them were driven to Wales.

After this time were the people of Wales considered Britons, Celts, or just simply Welsh.

Side question, were Britons considered Celts or were these two different groups of people? If not where did the Celts go?

Did he, as soon as he got into politics in the early 1920s, believe in the mass extermination of the Jewish population?

Edit: Please do link any previous posts if this was asked before (did a quick search but couldn't find any)

If I understand correctly, Roman Legionaries were supposed to serve for 25 years and then in return would be given a plot of land and a comfortable retirement.

What happened to the ones who were so severely wounded in the line of duty that they could no longer perform the necessary duties of a legionary? Was there some type of veterans benefits or early retirement to take care of them, or would they have been on their own to deal with their problems because they couldn't complete the contract?

I understand that back then the pies were often free standing and used as cooking vessels rather than as part of the meal itself.

But why was this the case? Did it have to do with pastry crust being considered unfit for all but the poor whom they gave it to as a charity like their soup tranchers?

Did non-destitute medievals ever eat pastry?

So previously, during Lent I’ve heard that people used to have to fast every day. Was this true during the Middle Ages in Western Europe? If so, how did medieval peasants (making up most of the population) fast given that they had to do heavy farm labour? Did they work less during Lent, or did they work the same amount? Did agricultural productivity decline?

I know only very little about Yunus Emre who lived in the 1300s, but what about Turkish spoken 1000 years before his time?