Hey there everyone,

When I first started getting interested in philosophy I did some research on the Ancient Greek philosophers and it said somewhere that Socrates and Plato were homosexual and I just took it at that, but after a few months I started researching and found out that the term ‘homosexual’ in Ancient Greece was very different to what it was today so now I’m very confused on what being homosexual meant in Ancient Greece and if Socrates and Plato were both gay.

Any help would be greatly appreciated

I looked this up and surprisingly couldn't find a good answer. You'd think it would have been considering it's sheer size and value to investors at the time, but I couldn't find any evidence.

I'm doing a sort of fantasy alternate history book and I'm heavily changing the history of the Americas. While there is more info on South and Central America, I want to focus a lot on North America. Could someone tell me or point me to some reliable source on the ancient history of the new world?

[deleted]

The Treaty of Versailles was controversial for many reasons, both in Germany and in other countries such as the USA. Germany, in particular, may have had a substantial faction that would prefer to keep fighting (either because they believed victory was possible, to delay in hopes for a better deal, or in the "go down with the ship" kind of mentality, especially when faced with humiliating terms of the Treaty).

Others, perhaps, would hope that they could obtain better terms via America's help (contrast with Wilson's Fourteen Points) than by giving in to the Treaty, and that other powers would be more likely to negotiate than to resume hostilities, which (especially in war-weary democracies) nobody really wanted to do after suffering so many war losses, and after the public in those countries already accepted that "the war is over" and were mentally prepared to return to civilian life.

Additionally, events such as the Scuttling at Scapa Flow were ostensibly performed due to a "misunderstanding" about whether the Armistice was, in fact, in effect, and while it may have just been a convenient justification, it nevertheless pointed to the idea that a permanent peace treaty was not all certain before it was signed.

Was it ever a realistic possibility that Germany would refuse signing the Treaty, and continue fighting, possibly gambling for a better deal?

Looking at, let's say, the 1st and 2nd century CE, from before Jesus to after Bar Kokhba... who were the people who lived in Palestine?

Naturally there were Jews, Samaritans, Jewish Christians who became less and less Jewish, naturally there were Roman soldiers... were there Roman civilians? Were there non-Roman pagans (like Philistines or Canaanites)? Would there have been peoples we could think of as "Arabs" or "Ishmaelites"?

From before written history, all the way into the modern era, a stick with a pointy end was the most commonly used implement of warfare, with very few exceptions (mostly wealthy warrior nobility. And the Roman legions). Yet, as a symbol of pre-modern military might, it is vastly overshadowed by the sword. Why is this? How long has this been the case?

I've read accounts that after the Romans left, much of the architectural knowledge left with them, as the Britons couldn't build like the Romans. Why was this knowledge never oassed onto them? Was there nobody that could reverse-engineer the process?

Perhaps my thinking is influenced by fiction but it seems incredible to me that a line of kings who claimed descent from a literal god (Merovech) could become so powerless as the Merovingians became. Could anyone shed some light on this?

When was it first theoreticized ? And when did American culture embrace the idea ?

Why did the Europeans not colonise Africa like they did in America?

I assume it's Zeus?

What are the oldest recipes we have for gourmet food only served for nobles, kings and emperors? Is it known what ancient rulers would have for dinner? What could a roman, or even later byzantine emperor expect to have for dinner?