To clarify my question here, I will give some background info.

I've been studying the transition from the Late Republic to the Principate and with that comes the study of both Julius Caesar and Augustus. However, they are quite often referred to as emperors(Julius being "the first emperor") and I think this is weird. Julius Caesar proclaimed himself dictator in perpetuity, which is a bit weird for Roman standards (it got him killed), but I would not call him an emperor. Augustus in his time was not (and could not be) referred to as emperor. So why do we call them both emperors?

Ottoman rulers claimed caliphal authority in 1517 and it was abolished in 1924. This authority was built off their authority as Sultan of the Empire. But did being caliph meant holding power and leading the whole Muslim community, or was it just ceremonious?

I was reading about the excavations at Berenike. Among the several finds of trade goods which involves pepper, teak and other items from the Indian coast there is also mention of amphoraes that used to contain 'fish sauce'. What is fish sauce? how was it made? what type of fish was used? What uses did this substance have in roman society?

Britain had a direct land connection with the Soviet Union (Iran and Iraq), and if the Soviets failed to hold the Germans back, they could be attacked from the Caucasus, so why didn’t Britain send troops into the USSR to support the troops there?

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! Please don’t just write a phrase or a sentence—explain the thing, get us interested in it! Include sources especially if you think other people might be interested in them.

AskHistorians requires that answers be supported by published research. We do not allow posts based on personal or relatives' anecdotes. All other rules also apply—no bigotry, current events, and so forth.

For this round, let’s look at: Heroes of the battlefield—when they’re away from the battlefield! Who were the heroic nurses of the Crimean War and the Pacific theatre of World War II when they were back at home? What do we really know about all those Founding Fathers we hear about in Hamilton’s “Yorktown (The World Turned Upside Down)”?

Next time: Femme Fatales

It seems that if you are imaging a Mafiosa in your head, you're most likely picturing, if not a character from one of the Godfather films, certainly you have an image that is heavily influenced by the films. They were immediate hits, and few would disagree that at least two of them deserve every bit of praise received.

But while it is blazingly obvious how the films have influenced the image of the Mafia in America to us non-Made Men, what about for the people who it actually portrayed?

It is easy to see the figures as romanticized anti-heroes in many regards, so I would suspect that it was hard for the very subjects of the film, the Mafia itself, not to latch onto the films. Perhaps I'm being presumptuous in assuming that Puzo and Coppola took a fair bit of creative liberty in how they portray the Mafia in the film, but essentially, I'm wondering how much of the tail was wagging the dog in the wake of the film. Did the image of the Mafia in the films see the culture within the Mafia shift at all to reflect their media portrayal, and if so, how?

Like in the title. Did it have more to do with gender priviliges ( i.e. women in ancient Rome could not vote or hold political powers and baths were a place of social meetings ) than being distracted due to sexual attraction? Or was it simply because homosexuality in ancient Rome wasn't as common as it is believed ( e.g. common only among aristocrats )?

I do not want to start any political debate here. Asking out of pure curiosity

The reason for him being depicted wearing a laurel crown is pretty obvious, but I still have no idea as to why he is depicted in every painting of him wearing red. In some paintings, ALL of his clothes are red!

I’m thinking back in history on racism and its existence in general. I’m not fully versed of what their “affair” entailed, but I’m wondering how them being such different races was viewed by the general citizens. Was it widely accepted? Did they care about race and the status of different races?

I'm from the Philippines, and a bit of an egoistic person, when it comes to my country, I try to defend misinformation from spreading about my country (things mostly in a geologic perspective). However, I encountered people from western countries, that always refute the Land Bridge and Waves of Migration, when someone brings up how the first settlers in my beloved country, came and settled. Now I was wondering if why they still refute it, I heard people say, that the low tide level couldn't be possible to create land bridges, which explains the presence of prehistoric fossils that date back to the pleistocene, and they tell me that the more probable thing to happen, which is the out of Taiwan model, is more probable than the waves of Migration. Can anyone explain to me, how the waves of Migration less probable than the Out of Taiwan model, and land bridges is impossible, if not highly unlikely, if the Philippines has fossils of prehistoric rhinos?

Sorry if that's a bit long and unwieldy of a title, but I'm curious to what degree preconceptions of religion and myth influenced the reception and recording of Native American beliefs and folklore - do we know if the non-Native Americans who wrote down or about these beliefs did so through the lens of their experience with other cultures? Like, normally many North American religions and folklore are depicted as having an animistic, shamanistic approach, while the more "civilized" Aztec and Maya are depicted with gods closer to ancient Mediterranean civilizations.

Hello, historians of Reddit. my question is: is Lattimore still the best when it comes to the Illiad and the odyssey? or are there better versions? (perhaps translations is a better word)
I want fidelity(AKA being closest to the original) since I don't read ancient Greek, I don't mind being a bit hard to read

thank you all.

In the instance of ship to ship comment who designated what target to engage? Was it the captain? How did that order get to the guns and how would they know which ship he was even talking about? What if they wanted to engage more than one target at the same time?

Also, is there a definite surety on their existence or is it still a mere hypothesis?

[deleted]

I’ve noticed that most of the popular histories of Ancient Egypt seem to cover mainly the Old Kingdom to the New Kingdom; I’m looking for books or articles on the history and culture of Egypt as it came under eras of foreign incursion. Most of the things I’ve read cover the Ptolemaic period but I haven’t found any that cover the Hyksos, Nubian, Libyan and Assyrian rulers or the Persian satrapy. Any good recommendations would be really appreciated!

What are the chances of survival if you were posted to any combat vessel such as a BB/CA/CL/CV/DD/SS compared to bomber pilots or even tankers? I know the deadliest was the infantry and the Marines due to the amount of casualty they sustained comparatively.