From what I have read, almost all Roman sources that mention Jesus Christ do so centuries after his death, especially especially those that come from outside the Bible or related texts.

Was Jesus Christ an important figure during his life? And if so why aren't there more contemporary sources mentioning him?

Sure there were lots of very physical demanding jobs but I assume most of those worker also didn't eat very well. Give what we now know about kcal and protein necessary to build a lot of muscles.

I understand this is likely to be multifaceted and more complicated than it may at first seem since it involves travelling vast distances and any number of things could delay a journey before rail travel and even since it was established. Poor maps, weather being unpredictable or even other people doing what they do.

​

I'm curious though. Is there any evidence of travellers considering the time zone of their destination when planning their journey in the centuries before rail travel and the creation of time zones as we use them today? There are definitely civilisations large enough that they covered multiple time zones even a thousand years ago or more.

The Roman Empire was its time ahead in so many subjects, a forerunner in many fields and had all thing needed to build a steam engine. Why did not a single person think of putting them together and start the industrial revolution centuries earlier? The Greek mathematician Hero of Alexandria from Roman Egypt even published a description of a steam-powered device. Why was there ultimately no use for it during his time?

Welcome to Tuesday Trivia!

If you are:

• a long-time reader, lurker, or inquirer who has always felt too nervous to contribute an answer
• new to /r/AskHistorians and getting a feel for the community
• Looking for feedback on how well you answer
• polishing up a flair application
• one of our amazing flairs

this thread is for you ALL!

Come share the cool stuff you love about the past!

We do not allow posts based on personal or relatives' anecdotes. Brief and short answers are allowed but MUST be properly sourced to respectable literature. All other rules also apply—no bigotry, current events, and so forth.

For this round, let’s look at: Medicine! You won't need a spoonful of sugar for this week's theme! Open up and say for medicine! From snake oil to unexpected objects placed in or on unexpected parts of the human body, this week is dedicated to trivia about the things we've done to heal boo-boos, soothe disrupted humors, or otherwise fix what is unwell in the body.

Although the United States isn't known for prioritizing foreign language education in its public schools, was there ever any overt or covert interest by the United States (or other non-Soviet nations) in educating the public in the language as a way to better understand perceived threats? Or rather, was there a fear that this might make citizens more sympathetic to Soviet interests?

They are a staple of anti-colonial literature and films, where they are used as the quintessential example of dehumanization under colonialism. But did they actually exist? If yes, then how widespread were they?

I just started reading up on Black American history, and I read the Confederate Constitution. Doesn't that throw the whole "the Civil War was not fought to preserve slavery" out the window?

I'm adding this later. Michener was always something you saw on Mom's bookshelf, not really taking it seriously. But I was compelled to start reading Chesapeake, probably because I'm watching The Wire. And the first thing I learn is that, not only did Michener earn a Pulitzer in the late 40's for Pacific, but it was based on his tour of duty doing what's in the title. Was this a move by the General Staff? Self interest or altruism? Self-aggrandizement, or a genuine interest in preserving military history? Thanks.

Most history books emphasized how large numbers of native Americans died from European diseases but often didn't mention if the Europeans suffered from American diseases.

I'm writting a book and I'd like to be as accurate possible, even with the changes I am going to make. I'd love reliable sources and help

The term is "tactical" not "tactile" weapons. My apologies. I'll have a stern discussion with autocorrect.

There’s evidence of Aboriginal occupancy in Australia for 20,000 years or more. Given the strength of the Australian Gold Rush, and the abundance of gold found literally lying on the ground in certain areas, it seems unusual to think that Aboriginal Australians found no use for such an easily attainable metal; especially considering the exorbitant use in civilisations such as Ancient Egypt or Rome.

So I was talking to my father who Is a former marine and he said it was more to do with politics than any thing else that there were no marines at d day and it was becuase the army didn't want then stealing all the spotlight and credit for it like they did in ww1 sometimes. Is there any truth to that?

I have done a bit of reading about both Judaism and the Roman Empire, and I found it surprising that Jews were afforded distinct statuses under the Romans, especially considering Jews were a small, relatively uninfluential people group at the time. Some of the legal distinctions I am referring to include:

• Jewish exemption from the Roman Imperial Cult
• Fiscus Judaicus, the "Jewish tax"
• Jewish exemption from the Roman military (because of shabbat observance? or as thanks for helping Julius Cesear?) though is this even true?
• In Roman Egypt, aside from the colonial identities of "Greek" and "Roman" and the catch-all category of "Egyptian" (which basically included everyone else), "Jew" was the only distinct social status recognized in the province

My first question is to what degree were these sorts of arrangement with particular people groups exceptional? I.e. did the Romans commonly make these sorts of compromises with distinct people groups?

My second question is what prompted such distinctive treatment of the Jewish people by the Romans? This question is mainly concerning the latter two of my above points (rather than the first two, which I understand to have been the consequences of the Jewish-Roman Wars). I.e. why were Jews exempted from Roman military service (if this is even true), and why were "Jews" the only non-colonial, non-indigenous identity legally recognized in Roman Egypt?

Time period being the 1930s-40s of course.

Would he have supported it? Opposed it? Think it was merely a peculiar Southern institution? Would he have thought much about it all?

Mid- 20th century media always seems to portray titanium as this almost magically futuristic metal that would be what everything in the future would be made of. But currently, most of it seems to be used to make white paint.

What happened?

Today learning a language is not easy, but the resources are at our fingertips and thus much easier than before, how did people in for example medieval France learn languages?