When Caesar pardoned the men who had openly fought against him, he was openly breaking with the tradition of proscription that Marius and Sulla has begun. When he was killed, Augustus returned to the old bloody methods. Following Augustus, successive emperors would purge their enemies with reckless abandon almost without exception.

Can we say with certainty however that this was mostly due to the legacy of the ‘Liberators’ murder of Caesar?

As a part of my Leaving Certificate (final secondary school exam in Ireland) History Exam I have to complete a research project on any historical event ranging from 1800-1993 and I've chosen to do mine on the Colarado War. If anybody knows of any primary sources (first hand accounts, newspaper articles, anything from the time really) it would be a huge help if you could let me know about them. Any secondary sources would help too. And any books about the events too

The world, especially the Asian world, is filled with generational conflicts and ancient grudges etc. Yet considering the sheer destruction they suffered at the hands of the Americans the local populace of Japan didn't doesn't seem to have immediately or ever had a period of sharp and widespread anti American sentiment or hatred. Then looking at how things developed between the two nations in the 50s and onwards relations actually got relatively warm all things considered. Is there any specific reason that the two nations grew so close so fast despite previously being at each other's throats to such a severity and that same generation that fought in or experienced the wars still a large part of the populace?

Polish historians. How brutal was the Russian invasion at the beginning of WW2, was their occupation as bad as the Nazi's. I live in a country where Russian invasion is blatantly denied erased from the History textbook, though I knew that it did totally happen as shown in many sources.

I was reading about Musa I of Mali (otherwise known as Mansa Musa) and then it dawned on me. For a very prominent figure like him there's surprisingly little written record about him. Most of the written record of him is from an outside traveler (like Ibn Battuta) or from documentation by several eyewitnesses during the hajj. From my observation this trend doesn't end here. Another example is Ghana Empire. Written record of the empire only exist because of al-Khwarizmi and Al-Bakri (again, an outsider). Is it because of culture ? Is it because there's just weren't that many literate person ? Or is it because we haven't found many surviving historical record in mainland Africa ?

Apologies in advance for my poor english (it's not my first language) and/or my poor references (i've just started learning about african history, hoping to better understand the world we are living in)

The Romans were famous for adapting various gods and folklore into their own pantheon by drawing parallels between them, i.e. sea gods all became Neptune, war gods became Mars, etc.

Did they attempt this same thing with Judaism and later Christianity? If so, why did it fail when it seemed to have worked almost everywhere else?

There's a story in my family about a relative who was allegedly scheduled to travel on the Titanic but missed the departure. I have no idea if it's true or not, but are there any verified instances of this happening? People who were scheduled to sail as passengers or crew but either missed the departure or deserted at the first port?

Hello,

I've done a search for this here but not found this specific question.

I've been reading a fair amount about the lives of women in ancient Greece and I'm seeing a general trend suggesting life for women (especially those in Athens) was not particularly great by contemporary standards.

For all the reading I've done, however, I keep asking myself - "does this mean they were unhappy?" because so many of the things I've been reading suggest (or outright state) that life must have been "miserable." I have been asking myself, "if women were raised in this society, and they knew what was expected of them, and saw how all their female relatives were living, would it have just seemed "normal" to them? Did they resent it and we have no idea because they had no voice, or did they not mind because it was all they knew?"

Perhaps it's a bit of both. I'm sure individual opinions would have varied wildly.

As an example, I know a lot of my friends look at a Niqab as oppressive and misogynistic but I've also read the opinions of Muslim women who wear them proudly and view them as part of their culture and religion. One viewpoint looks at that practice as something that is oppressive, the other sees it as an expression of heritage and tradition.

So I'm wondering, do we have any idea of what ancient Greek women thought about their daily lives and position in society? Do we have any idea if they were miserable, content, or happy?

Thanks for your time :)

Hello all,

I’ve heard passing reference (not by historians) to there being different beliefs within the Nazi regime, namely the Agrarian Blood and Soil faction represented by Himmler, the Willhelmine faction and the Hindenburgers.

Would anybody be able to clarify these terms for me, and whether or not these ideological factions existed, or if they were a pre-1933 categorization denoting the various conservative groups in Germany.

I was reading about Queen Elizabeth I when this popped into my head and I noticed how severely her half-sister, Bloody Mary, enforced widely unpopular anti-Protestant laws very harshly but effectively. Why couldn’t a Queen or Empress pass and enforce the same laws. Sure there would be outrage but it would be quelled with flogging and execution like almost all other crimes against the Crown’s word of the time. So why didn’t female monarchs make and enforce these laws?

The history of the Kingdom of England's main predecessor state, the Kingdom of Wessex, dips back into legendary territory (do historians agree on whether or not King Cerdic even existed, or if he did, whether or not he actually founded a "kingdom" in Wessex in 519 CE?). As such, I'm limiting the scope of the question to after England as a whole was formed.

By "successor states", I am referring to the Kingdom of Great Britain and the United Kingdom. I know England was and is a distinct part of those, but I didn't want the existence of, say, a Scottish monarch to somehow be counted as England being ruled by a "foreign" power.

I was watching the ATP cup tennis tournament this evening which is being held in Sydney AUS and is pitting national teams against one another. The match I watched was Serbia vs Russia. I was surprised to see among the many Serbian flags the Serbian camp also had prominently displayed the skull and crossbones flag of the Chetniks. Obviously the Chetniks are probably viewed favorably in Serbia as part of a force that battled the Nazis and godless communists, but the reality is they were Serbian fascist militants right? Their flag and name was even revived by Republka Srpska in the 90s I believe. So am I wrong to say Chetniks and their symbolism are controversial in the west? I was surprised no one objected to the display of a political/nationalist/fascist flag at an internationally televised tennis match in Australia.

Also I should note the flag was behind the players box and therefore seemed not to have been brought by just some fan.

Nowadays many sovereign countries have long, official names that reflect the stateform and nation such as "Federal Republic of Germany", "Russian Federaion", "Kingdom of the Netherlands" and "United States of America". But in daily speach, they are mostly referred to as simply "Germany", "Russia", "Holland/the Netherlands" and "USA/America".

It is of course not a good idea to talk about different countries and then use the full official name each time, but using the official state name would be essential to refer to certain countries in official documents where distinction and punctuality is important.

Was this always done? Were geopolitical entities referred to their official name in treaties in antiquity or the middle ages? Did they even had actual official names like there are now? And if this all is not the case, from what moment and why did people began to use long official state names?