I am currently writing an essay about the contribution the city of Delphi has on the understanding of the past and one thing I need mention is a historical debate of at least 2 different perspectives or interpretations of either the site or an artefact found there. E.g the palace of Knossos possibly having a different purpose as what was originally thought.

In my research I haven't found anything that has substantial sources or reasoning. Some include:

1. How the Pythia was chosen/ who she was. Some believe young virgin, others over 50 and others think that she was once young but became old because she was violated and kidnapped etc. This would be ok except I am unable to find reliable sources

2. Who the Charioteer of Delphi was. He was wearing clothes which was supposedly unusual for the time period which meant he might not have been noble - it wasn't appropriate to show a household servant nude. But others think athletes could only be noble.

3. What gases caused the oracle to act hysterical? Would be perfect however after asking my teacher it is too scientific instead of historical. However accounts of how she acted still might work.

The main issue I have had is finding professional opinions (preferably archaeologists or historian) about the 'debate'. So all sources are welcome and I am happy to read however online articles/ papers/ pdfs are the best.

Any help will be greatly appreciated and I hope that I haven't broken any of the homework help rules - if so I am happy to edit or change/ delete the question.

Early Soviet jet aircraft seemed to follow a similar numbering trend where aircraft would appear with a (blank)-15 (i.e. MiG-15, Yak-15, La-15) and would be followed up by a 17 designated aircraft (i.e. MiG-17, Yak-17). Why do these aircraft share the number 15 and why is 17 the succeeding designation? What's their significance?

While reading “Talking to Strangers” by Malcolm Gladwell he discussed America’s failed attempt at intelligence collecting on Cuba during the Cold War, that culminated in La Guerra de la CIA contra Cuba. “Then he released on Cuban television an astonishing eleven-part documentary entitled La Guerra de la CIA contra Cuba—The CIA’s War against Cuba. Cuban intelligence, it turned out, had filmed and recorded everything the CIA had been doing in their country for at least ten years—as if they were creating a reality show.”

I just have so many questions about this, but I’ll start with the questions listed in the title.

Why was Napoléon III motivated to support the consolidation of the various Italian city-states into the modern state of Italy?

It seems that the interests of the French state would be better served has Italy remained divided.

Was it as a counter to the German unification?

Hello, I found Carl Ortwin Sauer's book The Early Spanish Main to be an amazing resource on the subject. Does anyone know any books or historians who critique the book though?

I was talking to a co-worker today about ancient civilizations such as Rome and the Mongol empire. We got on the subject of ancient Egypt and neither of us knew much about it. So it's a subject I'd like to really explore. Do y'all have any good recommendations to start me off on this new path of discovery?

While watching Midway and seeing the wounded, I remembered the practice of marking soldiers who weren’t able to be saved. Did this practice ever commonly occur, and if so, under what circumstances and events would this take place? Also, what films showed this practice, accurately or inaccurately?

I’m sure many of us saw the TIL about Grover Cleveland. How did the public react to this? Was it seen as a Cinderella type situation or seen as immoral that a father figure would marry a girl. Was this age gap at the time still very common?

I've come up against the "Gregory the Great saw the whiteness of the enslaved Angles at a Roman market and judged they must be saved" conceit a few times and I have to ask: is there be any truth to it or is it a story made up after the fact?

If it is true who enslaved these men and how were they traded through to Rome? Would they have been Romano-British prisoners of war sold to Frankish merchants or were the Franks taking their own heathen slaves at this time?

If I recall correctly there was Reaganomics in the United States and Thatcher's Conservative government which were the leaders of this movement or phenomenon. There were also market reforms in Australia and New Zealand during the same period. Several of the Nordic countries such as Denmark, Sweden and Finland also trimmed down their extensive welfare states in the 90s. How connected are these countries' experiences and why did this phenomenon occur in the first place?

Stationary archers can shoot farther and stronger bows than horse archers. A horse wouldn’t charge a spear and gore itself so why couldn’t regular armies just use a lot of archers and piles/spears to beat steppe armies? How would steppe armies even begin to beat such a force?

According to wikipedia, the Domesday Book recorded that over ten percent of England's population in 1086 were slaves. This isn't something that's commonly reflected in media about the period. Does it refer to serfdom, or another type of servitude?

I'm curious about what the word "slave" here means. Who were these slaves? How did one become a slave? What were they more commonly used for? Who were they owned by/who did they owe service to? How was the practice viewed by the church? Thanks in advance.

• Did Germany have fewer troops in France compared to the Homeland?
• Did they count on French civilians being willing to join the allied cause (as opposed to German citizens assumedly working against allied troops)?
• Was it a consideration of terrain, thinking that France was geographically easier to access and get through to Germany, compared to Belgium, the Netherlands, or going through the North sea?

Why focus on access through Normandy? As a follow-up, how did the allies go from liberating Paris to winning the war overall? What were their next steps? I'd be down to just get a link for an article or timeline on this second question, since I assume the main question would take enough time as it is.

Thank you!

I read that South Africa was largely isolated from the international community during the Apartheid era with the notable exceptions of Rhodesia and Portugal. While I understand Rhodesia and South Africa had strong relations due to similar racist policies, why would Portugal have relations with South Africa?

Today we are seeing a lot of people unwilling to accept science-based conclusions, even going so far as ignoring the benefits modern science has given us in just medicine and technology...denouncing these things while they benefit from those same advances.

Edit: "to" to "so", oops

How did a Germanic people like the Franks come to speak French, which is a Romance language. I know they had a long history of contact cohabitation with the Romans, but presumably, they originally spoke a Germanic dialect.

And what lead to that, just lucky or a complex sequence of events?

Lincoln consistently ran on keeping the Union together and shied away from completely denouncing slavery. He chose his words carefully in speeches as to not show he may have been a staunch abolitionist. Did he do this because he knew what he had to say in order to have the best chance to win the presidency? It’s slightly off-putting he doesn’t denounce slavery while running.

During the Civil War, his Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in the South — not the border states. While I understand he didn’t want the border states to flip to the Confederacy, did he actually know what he was doing or was it a risky, lucky decision?

His poor decision making in choosing generals put him in a precarious spot early in the war. The North was “losing” a war they should’ve won handily and quickly.

Ultimately, we only have one historical timeline and hindsight is 20/20. Lincoln made the right decisions because history played out that way.

But my friends and I were debating whether or not Lincoln is the greatest president and this discussion came up. Was he a product of luck or a well-thought-out, long term plan to keep the Union together? Would other presidents and their personalities have played things out in a similar manner?

For Lincoln scholars out there, was he more of a genius OR a product of his decisions that played out well....and perhaps even with more luck than not?