The empire has been referred to as "the sick man of Europe" in the prelude to the First World War, and its jannisaries have been described as the first standing army in Europe. Would the Ottomans ever have thought of themselves as European? If not, what did they think of themselves as?

During the 5th century BC women in Athens were restricted in a manner that seems relatively extreme even for patriarchal ancient societies.

By the time of the Hellenistic period it seems that women had much more freedom and often participated in politics and leadership in significant ways.

During the Roman Empire, it seems that the public role of women in the Hellenistic East was more prominent than in the Latin West.

What happened in the 4th century BC to turn Greek/Hellenistic society from one of the most patriarchal of contemporary civilized societies to one of the least patriarchal of contemporary civilized societies?

I tried googling it but it kept just saying that there’s a lot of Icelandic people, and not a lot of immigration. If so could you lend me some information I’d like to learn more about it.

I've been reading a book (City of Gangs) about the history of gangs in Glasgow. There's this part that tells of a police officer who worked a certain community in the 30s. Everyone seemed to hate him. They wrote to his bosses several times asking for him to be moved to another area, and they gave him the nickname Hitler.

Obviously the name Hitler is now coloured by the events of WW2. If you call someone Hitler now, at best you're saying they're a tyrant and at worst you're calling them genocidal. But this was pre-WW2, so what would the nickname Hitler have implied then? What can we infer about this cop through his name?

(Also, is there a possibility that the info in the book is wrong? I'm very surprised about this name being used then)

I've been doing a bit of personal research on the Greeks in southern Italy during the ancient period, and noticed quite quickly that it doesn't seem the Hellenes actually had a name for the region. While i know the Romans called it Magna Graecia due to the abundance of Greek colonists in the area, it seems odd that the Greeks never had a name for it. So did the ancient Greeks ever have a name for these parts of southern Italy? Or would they have just called it Megas Hellas, the Greek translated version of the roman name?

One of the key features of Romantic era art and culture, at least as I learned it, was an obsession with the past, but I also know that it tended to get revised or embellished, maybe to suit new tastes or just to make things more interesting. One example of this I remember hearing/reading about was that Vikings didn't actually have horns on their helmets; that was a 19th century invention.

Did this sort of "revision" (that may be the wrong word) happen frequently? What are some examples? Did those who did it have a reasoning for it?

Why in particular were the Hebrews slaves to the Egyptians in relation to the Exodus? Apologize if this has already been answered.

I’ve heard some differing opinions on this and wanted a more historical take. I’m trying to learn a lot more about the history of Spain and this is something that I’d like professional opinions on.

I’m not talking about dropping atomic bomb as whole but dropping the second bomb, was it president truman decision or someone else?

My history prof says he believes the article from the Ancient History Bulletin that details a neurological disease that gave him paralysis. Is there enough evidence to support this? What are the other theories?

What is the history behind Vikings season 6? I mean what makes the characters in it important, what was going on at the time, and what happens next?

I know that Great Man Theory is rather unpopular, if not discredited, in more traditional strains of political history--trends, forces, institutions, and structures matter. But at the same time, I'm interested to know whether we can still speak of Great Man Theory in histories concerned with more creative endeavours: fine arts, cinema, literature, philosophy. Granted there's still structures and institutions governing these spheres (e.g. patronage and funding, public tastes, publisher/studio/salon gatekeepers), but I also see there might be more room for individual contingency and widespread impact (e.g. singular masters establishing entirely new schools of thought or movements that significantly change the way societies understood the world, or serendipitous moments of inspiration or accidents leading to masterpieces that inspire thousands). What do professional historians think? Do cultural, artistic, and intellectual histories afford more room for Great Man Theory interpretations?

How important was the Risorgimento to Mussolini's Fascism, why was it and how did the Fascist Party influence its history?

I've been reading quite a bit about the period in which Italy was unified and am somewhat familiar with the academic revisionism proposed by lots of British scholars, as well as Marxist reinterpretations of the various Italian Revolutions.

The former especially mentions Fascist interpretations of the Risorgimento, however I have absolutely no idea what these interpretations actually are! Any help explaining/pointing me in the right direction would be much appreciated!

Most depictions of Miners in the late 19th century show them handing small pieces of gold to a man behind a cage for what appears to be a small amount of money. What kind of exchange rate was there at this time? Did they shorthand the Miners by a large amount in regards to how much the gold was actually worth? Was the exchange different for company Miners and people with their own claims??

I have read that President Jefferson approached France to purchase New Orleans for $10 million. France then counters with an offer for the US to purchase all the Louisiana Territory for $15 million. Jefferson considered this deal unconstitutional because the US Constitution made no provisions for land sales, and the US accepting such a treaty would violate Jefferson's strict constructionism.

Was the original proposal to purchase New Orleans unconstitutional because it violated the Constitution or because if violated Jeffersonian principles of strict constructionism? What about the whole process was unconstitutional? Or How was the Louisiana Purchase unconstitutional and the New Orlean proposal legal? Sorry, I think I am confusing myself with the whole question.