Did they have a book where they wrote the stories? They painted these drawings on amphorae, I believe, but i don't think someone from that time would understand these drawings without context.

If it was all just spoken to one another, the myths we know now are probably very different from the original myths the Greek believed?

I like the book a lot and appreciate his frequent quoting of sources but I am constantly thrown off by his quoting his own diary and his very subjective statements about (mostly the Nazis) the subjects within. He uses a lot of adjectives I am really not used to in a history book like calling people “toadie” and “idiotic” and many more.

Again, I like the book and its personal takes are fun if nothing else but I can’t help but wonder if his own preconceptions shaded events in the book.

I have read a few books about WW2 but am just getting into the deeper aspects of it and don’t want some dude’s pissyness to throw a shade on my take of these characters.

[SOLVED]

A couple that loved each other but were forbid to be. They were exhumed, and the two were reburied in a mausoleum fashion with each of their tomb stones reaching out for each other. They’re hands do not touch, As the woman was married to another man.

I can’t remember the story. Apologies if some of the details are wrong.

Bit of a specific question, I know, but it's mostly to help logic out how I should age my main character in a novel I've been planning.

For specific dating, I currently have the book set post WWI, early 1919. Now I'm not really looking for what was like, a common and societally acceptable age, because I know it was very uncommon for any unmarried folks to live alone prior to the 50s iirc, I'm just looking for what would have been like legally acceptable I suppose? Like, could rent a flat sort of acceptable.

Currently planned, my character is 18 (born October 1900) from a fairly upper middle class family of tailors and dressmakers over in France. Around 1916/17 ish he moved to London with the very romanticzied idea of becoming an author because he adores Victorian Gothic novels. With him he brought a very large sum of his inheritance to pay for expenses while he attempted to get his writing off the ground.

So my general questioning, I suppose, is if a well dressed 16/17 year old waved around enough money could he have been able to live alone (regardless of social expectations and societal acceptability)

Now if that was totally a no go, what options could there have been for him? I know mid wwi London received quite a lot of children refugees from countries on the front lines, but I've never really researched what happened with them. Could that be an option for him?

I also have a bit later on when he'd just turned 18 (a little bit before the novel picks up, actually) His parents patience has run out (they didn't expect him to stake out in England for so long) and he's not been very successful in his publishing still, so he's quite quickly running out of money and actually moves in with a 25 year old veteran who does a large mix of whatever work he can, but lives alone until they become roommates. (said 25 year old is the sole surviving member of his family, so the very small home he grew up in is his own)

So if he would have been unable to really find any housing when he moved to England, I could tweak things around with his future roommate and have them move in together earlier than planned (just move the vet's service years back a little bit, he had been dismissed anyways)

Anyways. Sorry for this very convoluted and specific question, but my many Google searches weren't really helping me. Also I'm very sorry if this isn't the best place to ask this, but I don't know where else I could have asked it!

I'm Egyptian and Muslim, and recently saw Tom Daley, a gay British athlete, making the claim that the reason for homophobia in former British colonies like Pakistan is because of the British Empire essentially making them this way.

I myself think this argument is pretty silly, very paternalistic, quite western-centric and ultimately shifts blame to where it doesn't belong. However, Egypt is also a former British territory so I'm interested enough to ask: is there anything to back it up?

"Big Bronze" as in a conglomeration of wealthy individuals who were heavily invested in the bronze trade that fought against using iron for the sake of their own profits

For example, were there any dissenting voices in the newspapers or Parliament arguing that they should just say good riddence?

For what i have researched, i have realized that when the Republic of China was proclaimed, the Kuomingtang itself wasn't in power that much, because, if i remember correctly, Sun Yat-sen was forced to give the power to the Beiyang army and Yuang Shikai(which i consider a traitor) and later proclaimed the short-lived Empire of China, and basically started the warlords period Is this correct or have i commited mistakes when talking about Sun Yat-sen?

Or is this a hoax? I have heard it thrown around a lot and didn’t know if it had any truth to it.

I'm at 60% of the book, so don't spoiler. As a side note i'm at the point where i'm starting to hate every character (aside from Jack). But i ask those who have read this book, are the things described credible? Is it a honest and realiable portrait of the medieval world? For example i know that when there was a raid in a city, people used to prepare food for the soldiers passing by, and this is something unseen in the book (at least until now). Another thing described once in the book is the so called Ius Primae Noctis,which i know should be just a myth and totally unreal.

Thx for replying.

Who the chinese look up as the west looked up César? Who is the Indian monarch most akin to Alexander? Theres some kind of ethiopian Charlemagne?

Hello! I'm about to dig into a few books that have been on my list for some time. I share them at the bottom as reference. As you can see, I'm somewhat methodical in my selection and course of books.

If I were to identify my political perspectives it may be something akin to an RFK sense of humanism with a Kissinger acceptance of realpolitik.

I highly enjoy the work of Jason Stanley (How Propaganda Works was life changing) and I found Jonah Goldberg provocative. I'm looking for well researched books. I don't give a rat's ass for salacious gossip drivel writing. Most of all, I'm interested in 1. educating myself on historical events and 2. Having a broad perspective.

That being said, the way I've structured my reading list below is to start with some meta perspective, improve my familiarity with propaganda tactics, then go into some modern views on American political processes before jumping into geopolitics.

I'd welcome any perspective and advice you may have, as well as suggestions on some highly esteemed right wing thinkers (and a compelling book they wrote) to be sure I'm maintaining perspective here. Thank you.

• Steven Pinker - Better Angels of Our Nature (I'm taking this one with a grain of salt)
• Francis Fukuyama - The End of History
• John Rawls - The Law of Peoples
• Charles Wade Mills - The Racial Contract
• Vaclav Smil - How the World Really Works
• Noam Chomsky - How the World Works
• Noam Chomsky - Manufacturing Consent
• James Loewen - Lies My Teacher Told Me
• Machiavelli, Nicolo - Discourses on Livy
• Lee Drutman - Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America
• Steven Levitsky, Daniel Ziblatt - How Democracies Die What History Reveals About Our Future
• Ezra Klein - Why We're Polarized
• Tim Marshall - Prisoners of Geography - Ten Maps That Tell You Everything You Need to Know About Global Politics
• Stavridis - Sea Power : The History and Geopolitics of the World's Oceans (I'm taking this one with a grain of salt)
• Bruce Bueno de Mesquita - The Dictator's Handbook
• Eduardo Galeano - Open Veins of Latin America
• Zbigniew Brzezinski - Second Chance
• Zbigniew Brzezinski - Strategic Vision
• Henry Kissinger - Diplomacy
• Henry Kissinger - World Order (2014)
• Henry Kissinger - On China

Hi !
first of, I took a look on the FAQ and didn't find this question, if it had been asked i apologize, english isn't my first language but i will do my best. Now about the subject:

Quite "recently" the subject of German humiliation at the end of WWI by the treaty and how it lead to WW2 came back on the stage in my country, those event lead to some discutions about how it was true, but also to some saying it's been exagerated and mostly used by the far right for remilitarisation purposes, and that the economic disarry of germany came mostly from the 29 economic crisis.

So, knowing what we know now, how much of the "Versailles treaty responsible for WW2" narrative is true ?

Thank you, hope this is a good and appropriate question for this subreddit.
have a great day.

I'm writing a fantasy book which relies a lot on history, most precisely Roman Empire and The Great Tartaria. I'm already investigating this topic, but I would like to read about the knowledge y'all may have about what was The Great Tartaria, what was its territory, what happened to it, what does it have to do with Roman Empire.

Any information you have about this, would be very useful.

P.S. I'm aware it's not approved by historian communities and stuff, all I wanna know it's what is it known about this just so I can get it into my story

(Reposted since I forgot a question mark in the title last time)

Walter Scheidel explains in his “Escape from Rome” about how Rome coudl raise frankly mind boggling numbers of soldiers, like, more than would be mobilized against until like the 17th century in Europe, give or take.

It seems like a majority of troops were raised from its core Italian territory, before the expansion of the empire, many of these huge levies were raised before they could even draw troops from its colonies.

Even assuming the extraordinary levels of mobilization they achieved, this still seems to assume a pretty massive population in Italy, far large, as a proportion of the Europe/Mediterranean world than it is now or even for most of the last millennia or two?

How did it have so many people? I have identified a couple possibilities but I could be missing something?

1. Does it have to do with the “Roman warm period?” If so, how much of it was this?
2. Are my numbers wrong as a proportion and it was just their huge level of mobilization that makes things so impressive?
3. Other stuff I’m not considering?

I'm currently vacationing in the Vezère Valley in the Dordogne region of France, a beautiful region with a lot of (pre)history. The caves in the cliffs along the river have been inhabited for thousands of years. And some of these places have been fortified again and again (for example Forte de Reignac).

Having read some things about the viking age, I was wondering if the northern raiders made it up the Dordogne river and its tributary the Vezère. The information I found about the viking raids in France focused mainly on Paris. Does someone have some insights on the other great rivers of France?

So I’m in Santorini right now and I visited both the excavation of the lost city and a museum about Atlantis. The museum basically claimed that Santorini was 100% Atlantis but I’m sceptical about it. Could we know and confirm this?