From what I understand, there are very few (if any) original busts of Alexander the great still in existence, and many accounts of his appearance are often questioned due to people throwing in likely false descriptions of him to sell his character (i.e. his skin smelling of citrus, because people at the time believed descendents of gods had sweet/citrus smelling skin or something to that effect). Or that his hair his hair is described as a light blonde by some, but dark black/brown by others (Macedonians/Greeks not often known for their light blonde hair).

So I guess specifically my question is what accounts of Alexander the great's appearance do we believe are credible and what do we actually know about his appearance?

Basically can anyone explain post colonialism and it’s ideas to me? Think I’m not comprehending it properly because there’s so many varied opinions. So if anyone can simplify for me that would be great.

I tried to research this before asking it on here, I swear, but the best answer I could come up with really boiled down to, “History is written by the victors” kind of result.

Well sort of, what I found religion is a collection of ideas and beliefs while mythology is a collection of mythical stories that may or may not featured gods that were worshipped. But here’s my issue with that, what’s the difference in Greek, Norse, or Egyptian Folklore and mythical stories than the Quran, New Testament, or Old Testament.

Like why is Perseus riding a Pegasus considered mythical while Jesus walking on water isn’t classified as mythological?

(This isn’t to spark an argument amongst religion, I’m just genuinely curious why some are called mythologies while others are just religions.)

Hello!

My danish 2x great grandfather, in a letter to his nephew, recounted his trip to America after leaving Denmark in 1890. He “shipped out on a Norwegian bark,” making the trip from Copenhagen to Sundsvall. He wrote of being Shanghai’d and put aboard a Nova Scotia bark, spending 95 days on the boat, and then jumping off of another boat he and a friend were put upon, swimming from the ship to Canada as the ship neared the country during its voyage.

His father was a known lighthouse worker who seemed to make very good money, and there are records showing my family lived in more or less the same area for many decades before this.

All of his brothers left at the same time, and nobody gave any explanation for their leaving to start new the way my ancestor did. Nobody older in my family remembers any stories about life back in Denmark from their grandparents (this guy in question).

My question: aside from possible family issues of course, what was Denmark like in 1890 that could’ve sent a 24 year old and his brothers packing, never to return again? What events were taking place that could’ve led to this? We’re from in/around Soro if that helps at all.

Thank you!

Tiny Tim is usually presented as being vaguely sick or ailing yet it's never made very clear what's wrong with him. In addition, Scrooge sees a vision of his grave, only for his changed heart and financial support to assure his survival by the end of the story. So, naturally I'm wondering what early 19th century disease or condition best fits Tim's symptoms and how a moderately wealthy benefactor could make a difference, if all at? I'd imagine there's not much Scrooge or the medical care he'd buy would do against tuberculosis, for example.

I’ve been looking into shipwrecks and maritime disasters recently and one thing I’ve noticed is that during the 1800’s there where many ship disasters that resulted in the majority of the passengers and crew dying with only a few able to make it on life boats. So why did it take the Titanic disaster for people to start to seriously reconsider the safety standards of ships?

Since they shared a border on the Indus after Darius the Great, did any of the groups in these areas interact?

Historian prof friend of mine told me today: “In ten years there will probably be only eight or nine history PhD programs in the country, and all the rest will probably just hire from them, and half of them still won’t be able to land a job.”

Didn’t quite understand the pessimism until I went online and caught up with the disheartening discourse.

Was the offshoot unionist party of the 1860 election more northern or more southern jn terms of politics, i know the party’s only goal was preservation of union and its founders later joined the democrats in secession but also that most of the party member were former know nothings, so was the party in itself more north leaning or more south leaning?

So pawpaws are always something I've wanted to try, but actually finding them as proven harder than collecting hen's teeth.

From what I've read they used to be a common ingredient for pie—supposedly the origin of "as American s [blank] pie" even—and were a common ration for travelers, including Lewis and Clark.

But at some point they went from a common everyday food to one that's basically impossible to locate (at least on the West coast) and I haven't had much luck finding out what changed.

Many WWI battles to me seem to be characterized by the use of: (i) tactics which generally seem to place almost no value on human life (e.g., massive human wave attacks, trench warfare, sitting in trenches waiting to be gassed or blown up by walking artillery fire, etc.) by (ii) generals who seemed to be content with trying the same failed strategy/tactic over and over again hoping for a different result (i.e., little emphasis was placed on innovation or creativity, and it seems like there was a general agreement that the only way to win the war was to simply send more young men into the meat grinder than the other side).

I've posted a different version of this question on /r/HistoricalWhatIf asking how WWI would have been different if one side had WWII generals with knowledge of WWII tactics. But my question here is more about the mindset of the high-level strategic decision-makers, level of development of military technology (and the level of understanding of the capabilities of these technologies by such decision-makers), and why things turned out the way they did.

I can think of a few possible explanations for the high casualty numbers during The Battle of the Somme and other major battles during WWI (and would love to be corrected if I'm wrong). First, it's possible that the generals and other high-level decision-makers were simply closed minded and more concerned about their social standing than they were about preserving the lives of their men and military success, which led to a general skepticism towards trying new tactics and a general reluctance to entertain creative ideas or embrace technological developments to their fullest. One example of this kind of behavior that I can think of was the pushback against the deployment of the earliest tanks by generals/officers in charge of cavalry units who didn't want to see their elite units become obsolete.

Second, the fact that many of these pieces of modern military technology were in their infancy (e.g., tanks, planes, etc.) may have meant that the proper tactics (e.g., combined arms tactics) to take full advantage of what were, at the time, cutting-edge developments simply did not exist yet. So it wasn't that the generals were hard-headed, egotistical, and didn't care about their men, it's that they didn't know how to use these new fangled pieces of technology.

Finally, it's possible that there really wasn't a better way to fight these battles at the time. Maybe trench warfare and human wave attacks really were the only viable option given the circumstances. And although the precursors to modern military technology were around, perhaps they hadn't reached a sufficient level of development/reliability for modern tactics to be utilized, or perhaps more time was needed to refine the tactics to achieve the sort of results we saw in WWII.

I'm guessing that the answer is likely some combination of all of the above, but would love if someone with more knowledge about the topic could give a more concrete answer about what was actually going on behind the scenes. Thanks!

I've read pretty much everywhere that the consensus is that Jesus died between AD 30–33, but I can't seem to find where this conclusion comes from.

Are there some historical sources or pieces of evidence that have suggested this dating? Otherwise, how have scholars arrived at this dating?

Are there any historical examples of reigning queens marrying more than once or any queen mothers/dowager queens remarrying after the death of a spouse?

I’ve heard from a lot of Vietnam vets that the US was winning in Vietnam and the politicians lost it. Sounds similar to the German pre war stab in the back myth. Is that an apt comparison? Did US government prevent the military from winning?

Thanks

As a layman, it has always seemed to me when reading about the Battle of France that the British/Commonwealth contribution to the defence of France was relatively light, considering several Commonwealth countries had declared war on Germany. Germany was always going to have to attack the Allies via France. Now obviously Britain's advantage lay in the Navy, but providing 13 divisions out of a total of 130+ divisions for the "allies" in this battle seems unduly light on the face of things. Could Britain have provided more troops to reinforce France, and should they have?

Hi askhistorians!

I'm a 4th year PhD student in Classics and as part of my pre-dissertation qualifiers I am taking a candidacy exam on environmental history. My advisor for this field is fairly hands off and has instructed me to construct my own reading list for it, but the problem is I really don't know where to start!

I have been told The Corrupting Sea is a must-read for this, and I have also read Kyle Harper's The Fate of Rome. In addition I have two "companions" to environmental history edited volumes. I would really appreciate any suggestions or tips on what should be my must-reads!

Going back in history, did the concept of bad words exist? When did they emerge? How recent is the concept of a slur, and was something like "barbarian" comparable to a slur given the seriousness of the word in those days? Did Ancient Egyptians also have no-no words?

As I understand it, Lacrosse was originally a sport played by Native Americans. Today, it seems that most who play lacrosse and value it highly are people who attend private schools or colleges in the US, statistically schools that do not contain many if any Native American students.

How did this once indigenous sport come to be so cherished and valued by middle/upper class Americans who attend private institutions?

When did this occur and how?