I've got a few questions about this event that Pliny (chap 36, sect 24) seems to treat as an aside. Why was this job uniquely horrible that it prompted mass suicide? Was it common for jobs like this, especially early in Roman history, to be conducted by the citizens instead of slaves? Was defiling a corpse by crucifying it really such an awful fate for a Roman? Or is this entire story concocted out of thin air in order to smear the memory of the king at the time, Tarquinius Priscus, and to make him seem more tyrannical?

The Spartan way of life was partly based around the idea they they were foreign invaders in Greece, and that they were at perpetual war with their slaves, the Helots. If this is true, is there any record of where the Spartans came from originally?

Or would anyone more educated in the subject at least like to suggest their best theory?

Is there any reliable evidence that the British government knew about the Coventry Blitz in advance? I heard heard that they knew about it but chose not to act as they didn’t want to reveal they had cracked the Enigma code.

compared to today it seemed like people in ancient times had much better mental health even though they endured a lot more harsh conditions. Surely they must've had some sort of secret to this success? I'm sorry if this question seems repeated it's just I can't find any articles about it online and my Anthropology teacher shrugs her shoulders.

There was a US ship sunk by friendly fire in Pasific front line but I do not remember Ships name and battle?

From what I understand the city of Krakow has been the capital of Poland in the past such as the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth so why is it Warsaw today?

I have always been curious of where did these animals come from ? Did the romans capture them and brought them back all the way from Africa ? And if so how did they manage to keep them alive while traveling and how long did it take to transport a lion from Africa to Rome ?

First, this question is not based on an attempt to question or confirm anyone's religious (or secular) beliefs.

Second, I am aware that there is no conclusive archaeological evidence of Jesus' existence.

From what I have read, I tend to think that there is too little information to decide conclusively either way, but a friend insists the personage of Jesus is clearly a fabrication; for support of his argument, he cites the lack of firsthand accounts, prison records, etc. from the Roman era.

Nevertheless, I am curious, and based on a conversation with this friend (and two popular articles from credible popular periodicals [The Guardian and The New Yorker]) it seems to me the jury is out as to whether or not Jesus ever actually lived.

My layman's understanding is that there is no direct, reliable firsthand account of Jesus' existence in any non-Christian historical document. I am also aware that Flavius Josephus, Tacitus, and other Roman writers and historians did mention Jesus. I am also aware all of these came well after Jesus' supposed date of death.

For the sake of simplicity and clarification, my question is: What is the consensus among historians regarding the existence of Jesus (the man) as a historical figure?

Thank you!

[deleted]

Anything remotely close to the small pox epidemic that the natives picked up from the Spanish?

Was Winston Churchill really a good PM, or is it simply people remembering him for the war?

What were his domestic policies, and how did they play out over his tenure?

Was his bureaucratic style of leadership effective at all post-war?

Thank you for any answers.

[deleted]

I'm writing a book involving a vampire who was once a Templar and I'm thinking of making him initially uneducated, would this be historically accurate?

I have been reading Elizabeth Warren's latest book, and she seems to almost totally credit America's transition from a boom-and-bust economy to a stable one to FDR and his increases in regulations for banks, corporations, and the stock market, and not really to the War.

How true is this? Obviously, the truth is somewhere in the middle, and from what I've read, there's no definite consensus among historians, but I'd like to get the perspectives of more knowledgeable people about this. Thanks!

I mean did Romans just stop going to the markets & taverns in their cities, because they’d need a bucket full of coins to pay for anything, or did local economies just stop using state currency for that kind of daily commerce?

so in more detail the ones who didnt or were done fighting in the viking age but still had faith in the old gods fear that they would go to hel if they did not find a way to die in combat?

Such as women or old farmers who's fighting days were behind them not worry about not entering the gates of Valhalla? What did they do in this predicament?

You don't really hear English speakers mention sar Babili or Maharajadhiraja for example, so what makes pharaoh stand out?

Many ceremonial uniforms exist today from 19th century uniforms that fell off as modern camouflage or cheaper made fatigues became dominant.

However, why did no ceremonial guard retain proper knightly attire to the modern era? Or why did no newly formed one harken back to medieval armor? The closest are the Swiss Guard and similar ones, but those are still much more modern.