My Grandparents have vases in their living room which were apparently purchased by my great grandfather when he was posted abroad during the 1 World War, the story goes he purchased them from a trader and they are Chinese in Origin. However we have never been able to find anything like them online or verify they are indeed from china. They have 'Asian Like Writing Characters' on the bottom but we are unable to identify the language or alphabet the Characters originate from. Where would I be able to ask for help finding out about them and what type of historian could help?

I've heard a myth that the Roman Empire never had a single great mathematician, due to its terrible numerical system and its poor treatment of mathematicians. Sounds pretty exaggerated for such a long-standing and powerful empire, but then again I can't say I know any contradictions in it.

Is it true?

Hi people of Reddit. People of the r/askhistory told me to post this here. I am doing a research paper and I want to do the introduction of homophobia into Asia. I heard somewhere on Reddit that homophobia was brought by a British man into Asia. I could not find any sources for it though. Can anyone help me out?

I'm referring to late medieval knights 14th century or so.
First of all, the helm. Most suits of armor shown in museums and by medias have closed helmets or mobile visors that severely restrict vision. This is all well and good while on horseback or during a tourney, but did they really wear those while fighting on foot too? I'd say situational awareness and not being jumped from behind are more important while in melee, but I couldn't find informations about this. I imagine that, having squires and in general an entourage of people to support them, they could have more than one helmet at their disposal, but again, I struggle to find reliable informations about this fact. Also, I know that tournament armor and battle armor were different, with the latter being lighter and more mobile, but did they also have different armor for when they were to fight on foot rather than on horse (if they knew in advance of course)?

This is the first time I get into Western History, annnnd your history is confusing to say the least. Any help?

There are a lot of assumptions inherent in this question, I know--I'm fully prepared to hear that I may have a mistaken impression of affairs from the start. My understanding is that, essentially, the Christology of the Catholic and would-be Orthodox Christians are to this day identical, and their doctrinal differences are even now quite limited. As far as I am aware of the discourse, I most often hear that arguments over the primacy of the Pope were the rationale for the split, as the Emperor (and the church within the Empire) did not want to be even nominally subservient to the whims of Rome, and believed there was no basis in the scripture for overriding primacy of the Pope.

But lately I've been questioning whether that divide was mostly political, as I'd heard the story, or whether there was a divide in behavior long before the Schism itself ever became formal. My question goes beyond a division of rituals (it's my understanding that even at this time Orthodox priests tended to require beards, for example) into the precedents set by state and/or church actors: the Pope and Catholic Church in the west, and the Roman Emperor, the Patriarch, and the Church of the Empire in the east.

My first assumption, which I'd like to know if I'm getting correct or not, is that there was at least some division of ritual between the two groups before 1054, and that the eastern church was largely hostile to the imposition of the Pope's authority. Assuming these assumptions are (broadly) correct, from there I'm most curious about whether or not the split might not have begun in practice due to inaction or indifference on the part of the Pope toward the eastern church; post-schism attempts to reconcile and acquiescence to calls for help such as the First Crusade aside, was the Papacy likely to ignore eastern affairs compared to western ones? If not, could it then be said that the Emperor or Patriarch's obstruction of the Pope's efforts at the creation of a church structure fully centralized on Rome tended to cause an impression of difference between the two groups long before 1054, which ultimately helped lead to a full schism over authority?

How did chess rules like en passant and castling originally develop?

I'd be particularly interested in any discussions regarding the pros and cons of the rule change in terms of how it affects the gameplay dynamics.

A few years ago I found out my great-grandfather was of slovene ethnicity and that his family used to live in one of the slovene neighborhoods near Gorizia, which today is part of Italy.

I had an opportunity to visit the city of Gorizia for a few days, during which I sought books regarding the 19th century slovene community, with no success.

I was told by an italian-slovene that it would be difficult to find books in Italian regarding this theme due to a historical animosity between the Italians and Slovenes that has existed since they had to fight each other in the world wars.

Nevertheless, if you have any recommendation about books that consider this scope, would you share it with me?

And as a side, bonus question: what was life like under the Vandal and Ostrogothic kingdoms?

I would assume that the prospect of Athenian victory wasn't far fetched at all for quite some time during the war. When did it become apparent to the Athenians that defeat was looming?

I have a question about locating sources for a research paper. I'm writing a paper on World War 2 propaganda films, with the intent of comparing US/Allied Propaganda films to Nazi/Axis films. While I have had a lot of success finding films and primary sources from the US, I'm running into an issue finding films from Nazi Germany. I have found documentaries and the occasional clips and shots from Nazi films, I have been having difficulties finding the films themselves (the exception being Triumph of the Will which my college happened to have a copy of). Is there a good scholarly source I can use to find these films?

What were the political, economic, and cultural advantages of kievan rus's association with the byzantine empire?

I know the Kamakura Shogunate was established in 1195, would that be when the Shogun would have become the "supreme" ruler of japan, supreme defined as central or highest authority in the land, or do you have to go forward to the Tokugawa Shogunate for the Shogun to be considered "supreme".

I get that we can gain some instrumental insight from instrument artifacts, but was there a way to write music that we can understand in the same manner as today’s scale? Thanks!

or is this question based on misconceptions?

The main complaint about British rule at the time was: “Taxation without representation”. As I understand it, the colonies were actually taxed very lightly by mainland England so why didn’t the English government allow for colonial representation. This seems like a simple solution which would have allowed Britain to keep her colonies and satisfy the colonies themselves.

Ok I know this seems a bit random, but it’s something that’s been on my mind for a while. I know the Nazi’s were only Catholic as a facade, but still. The only key difference with Jews and Christians is Jews don’t think Jesus is Messiah. If that one difference is the case and they weren’t really Christians. Why didn’t Christians get persecuted as well?