First post in this sub, here’s hoping I’m getting the rules right.

Yes, I’ve been watching Ancient Aliens for entertainment - and not saying it’s aliens - but there are a lot of interesting comparisons across cultures/civilizations in folklore, religion, and technology (etc).

I’m an art historian of sorts and teachers/professors never spent a lot of time on how ancient peoples accomplished building sites like the pyramids in Giza, Saqqara, etc. - and I never really thought much of it previously.

However, le Ancient Aliens basically lays this out as absolutely im-freaking-possible. They bring up geometrical accuracy, hardness of materials used/altered, size/weight of the stones and materials that had to be moved - and so on - basically they emphasize that we can’t even copy it with modern technology.

How accurate is this idea that places like ancient Egypt could not possibly have built structures like the pyramids with the tools and technology we do know they had access to?

Please note: this question is not limited to ancient Egypt - if you have another example to use please do.

Hi there!

Background info: I'm a year 12 student and as a major work, I have to conduct a historical investigation into any area of history.

I'm thinking of doing my investigation in the area of armoured doctrine on the Eastern Front (post-Nazi invasion) in particular what I believe to be some key areas:

1. What was the difference between Soviet and Nazi armoured Doctrine? i.e. In conducting offensive operations, how did the methods/tactics differ.
2. This isn't exactly covered by armoured doctrine but to what extent did the Soviet ability to mass-produce tanks affect the situation on the eastern front? ( Is quantity over quality an effective method?)

I've found a few sources on German tank doctrine (A U.S published handbook from 1945 on German military forces and some books on German Tank design) but where I continually trip up is looking for sources on Soviet tactics/doctrine

Disclaimer: I'm not asking people to write this essay for me (please don't, I enjoy case studies), I'm just looking for advice/sources so I know I'm on the right track with my question.

I was always under the impression that King Henry VIII founded the church so that he could get a divorce which is why I’m confused. Why were they so against King Edward marrying Wallis? Why did they not allow people who got divorces mix in their circles? I understand the rules have since been changed but I need answers and don’t know how to search it!

Did it originate among the Maori or was it brought to Aotearoa (New Zealand) by ancestors to the Maori?

Weren't there social protocols of war and honour that would prohibit sneaking into a city and murdering soldiers/civilians in their sleep?

It's just funny to think of these very ancient people digging out buildings of an even more ancient civilization and doing things that would look familiar to modern day archeologists, it makes you think of how vast history is and how brief we are... so I wanna know if they were actually "ancient archeologists" or if I'm simply looking too much into it

There's been a number of questions about shellshock in WWI and its impact on soldiers. I'm curious, has there been academic research on how the wives whose husbands came home still suffering coped with what could be a drastically changed relationship? E.g. did they form networks and charitable organisations?

I am also interested in other relatives' reactions, e.g. parents.

I was just thinking most of our holiday foods are traditionally southern, or soul food. Sweet potatoes, Mac n cheese, mashed potatoes, and green bean casserole. Was it always this way? Or when did our eating habits change? Is it the same abroad? Or would say European Christmas dinner be completely different?

I understand that 'conscientious objector' status was an option for those who opposed the war on religious grounds, but at least according to wikipedia, the status was not possible for those who opposed it on political grounds. Let's suppose, for example, that someone was drafted who not only opposed US involvement in the war but genuinely, strongly supported the North Vietnamese in their efforts for national control. Would the US government consider this as treason in and of itself? Was the only option imprisonment?

I’ve been reading a bit on Norse colonization during the period of Viking expansion, and read a bit about how they actually had some contact, albeit limited, with native North Americans in Greenland and the fringes of what’s now Canada. This got me thinking- did the norsemen spread the diseases that would eventually devastate the Americas following Columbus’s voyages to these tribes? And if so, why didn’t they sweep down into the rest of North America 500 years early? Were the tribes likely too isolated? Or if the norsemen didn’t spread their European diseases, how were they able to avoid doing so? Was smallpox just not common among the Viking settlers?

I've often read that the USSR did not measure GDP or other stats we nowadays consider essential for measuring a nation's economic affluence. So how was the USSR's economy measured and compared to the United States? How can we contrast income and affluence in the two superpowers?

I've often seen it processed that both sides were simply waiting for the change to betray the other, but do we have letters or other records from top Soviet officials talking about their plans to break the treaty/goals for what to do with captured German territory.

I can't seem to find it anywhere, can anyone explain me?

On the one hand I suppose that Asterix would have massively raised interest in the Gauls for popular audiences (including myself here). To my limited knowledge this could build on state efforts in France to tie a national identity to the supposed Gaulish "ancestors" since the 19th century. On the other hand Goscinny and Uderzo were clearly no historians of Gaul, so I could imagine them popularising misconceptions as well.

By "Big History," I'm referring to the concept as defined by David Christian (see Maps of Time: An Introduction to Big History).

I'm interested in critical and alternative points of view to help me contextualize "Big History" within the wider field of history as an academic endeavor. I'm especially interested in hearing from academic historians for this reason.

Thanks in advance!

Since embassies are a hot bed of foreign spying, why did Russia allow the u.s. to have an embassy in its country and vice verse?

If you don’t want any spying, wouldn’t it be better to just close all embassies?

In these movies, the mafia has their roots in Sicily. From what I know about Italian history and having spoken to several Italians throughout the years, Italy was/is a very fragmented place, not having been unified until the 1870s. Even today, many Italians I speak to tell me that there is still some tension between the different regions, with Northern Italians looking down on Southern Italians and Sicilians and vice versa.

So, back to my question. In the movies and in pop culture, they constantly talk about needing to be of pure Italian extraction to be "Made". If the mafia is mostly Sicilian, as the movies indicate, could a person from let's say Florence have been "Made"?