Read Thucydides awhile ago and planning to do again but want to do so with some more framework of theories and hypotheses ...

Pericles' early strategy makes sense to avoid immediate loss against superior Spartan ground forces - 'treat Athens as an island by putting and its harbour behind walls and refuse to come out to defend the fields'. But it's less clear to me how he saw the war ending and in what terms.

The assymetric approach feels like a war of attrition but it looks to me like the cost of that attrition is mostly on Athens (their land but also their fleet being active cost money whereas the Spartan forces could fight in the right season without particular cost and live off Athenian land). Pericles also consistently avoids the more aggressive use of naval forces to make the war hurt Sparta (whether to protect Athenian lives or prevent things becoming more embittered). So I'm not sure what would force Sparta to the table.

Is the point that simply showing Athens can survive undermines the prestige and this power of Sparta? More radically, might Pericles have been aiming not for victory but to show that a land power and a sea power were neither able to destroy each other not real threats to each other, to make both sides accept that the permanent solution for Greece would be a bipolar system with Athens and Sparta each accepting the others' sphere?

Growing up, I had learned that Eleanor Roosevelt influenced President Roosevelt to protect Kyoto and Nara from bombing. I know one other person who had heard the same thing. Now, however, while I can find information about the influence of Langdon Warner and Henry Stimson, I can't find anything about Eleanor's influence on the decision. Also, I had heard that there was a secret agreement between the U.S. and Japan that protected these locations from bombing so long as they weren't used for military purposes, but I can't find anything about that either. Are these just myths?

Alice Roberts argues in her book imaginatively titled "The Celts" that the Celts probably originated in Iberia and spread out from there, rather than the Alpine origin that I understand is commonly accepted. She also claims that this idea holds more currency amongst Spanish and Portuguese scholars than the rest of the West. Is this accurate? What kind of discourse has taken place surrounding the issue?

Not sure if this is the right place to post this. I am an undergrad student and currently working on a project concerning Tennessee's old sodomy laws, do y'all know where I could find this? Thanks.

I’m not talking about big overarching questions like what the actual cause of the revolution was. Im more interested in small, seemingly irrelevant events that people still can’t come to a concensus on.

Did the government officials, newspapers, private citizens, etc of the Republic of Texas ever comment on the establishment of the Indian Territory across the Red River? Did the Rep. of Texas or individual Texians ever interact with the Chickasaw or Choctaw nations that they bordered?

Namely the points I want outlined

1. The efficiency of Reconstruction laws for African Americans.
2. The nature of local and state politics in the South and their effects on blacks.
3. Motivations and nature of lynching. (Found Brundage's book).
4. Research on the culture of African Americans during this time while transitioning from slavery. Namely their means of employment, means of education, and health compared to whites

[deleted]

Gallowglasses were Norse-Gaelic warriors from the Hebrides, Galloway, and other Scottish regions. This being said, most people would assume they were large... right? After all in the 1600s there was no man in Scotland under 6’ tall. And the Vikings were said to be huge warriors. But I question the validity of these statements. I am skeptical that these things are true but are just theatrics.

Full quote: ''Every quiet method for peace hath been ineffectual. Our prayers have been rejected with disdain; and only tended to convince us, that nothing flatters vanity, or confirms obstinacy in kings more than repeated petitioning - and nothing hat contributed more than that very measure to make the kings of Europe absolute: Witness Denmark and Sweden.''

I watch a lot of British TV and have long wondered what happened to people after their homes were bombed in WWII, mostly because I know that given the era (especially coming out of the depression when trust in banks was low) most people’s wealth was in “things” - their home, art, silver-wares, candelabras, etc.

I know that in England there were teams launched after each bombing to help the residents find temporary shelter, as well as providing a warm cup of tea during the cold night, but what happened to them FINANCIALLY? Could a family be ruined because a bomb hit their house vs. their neighbor’s, like some sort of reverse lottery? Was there a government program to help reimburse them for damages, like a “costs of war” type thing?

I’ve been curious about this for awhile so thank you in advance for your answers. (I’m also curious about how the other European countries handled this problem, but that’s a LOT to answer, so I’m primarily asking about England right now.)

[deleted]

Question's pretty much in the title. I've read it as "No friend ever served me, and no enemy ever wronged me, whom i have not repaid in full". But I've also read somewhere, honestly I think wikipedia, that Plutarch claims Sulla's epitaph said "No better friend, no worse enemy". Mike Duncan's History of Rome podcast also used this Plutarch version during his episode on Sulla. Do we know which version is the correct one? I also know that the American General Mattis has used the latter for a biography or something. Thanks in advance!

So,

Today, it's a whole industry. You got gyms, protein shakes fitness bloggers and all that jazz.

But when did people start working out? When did it become common? I can only ever remember like 80's workout tapes as "old-timey workout for the masses".

I get that in like medieval times and later on, with practically everybody toiling away doing physical labour, there was no need for working out, but maybe nobles did it? What about 1780-ies borgouise? Was for instance Robespierre swole?

I think that I heard somewhere that PTSD had always existed, of course, but was just less common for soldiers (year 1700 and earlier, specifically Europe) than it is nowadays. But why? If this is true. Is it because of how death and killing was such a big part of society back then? So seeing it in action would be less terrifying? And I would assume that the battlefields and wars back then would have looked a lot worse than they do today. The worst someone might see today is someone's head exploded. But half the weapons back then did that as well.

I have so many questions regarding these two civilizations which lived roughly during the same time and place.

​

Were they friendly towards each other or figthing each other in repeated wars? Did they speak the same language? Which civilization was more advanced? Did they have cities? Were the Aztecs warmongers and aggressive as the Mongols and the Mayans more peaceful and civilized as the Romans or Greeks? Have both civilizations lived in the Yucatan peninsula? Did they have schools? Organized military under one leader? Do Mexicans consider themselves descendants of the Aztecs or Mayans? Which of them sacrificed people for their gods?

​

Also, is there a particular book I could read about the differences between Aztecs and Mayans in order to better understand the differences?