Obviously this would make one of the greatest historical finds ever.

So I'm trying to understand more about the Celts. I'm currently watching "In Search of History-The Celts" and it's got me confused. I know the Celts didn't write about their society so what we know is based of the writings of the Roman's and Greeks. This documentary mentions that Celts were fierce warriors and often went into battle naked. From everything I've read its said that that's Roman propaganda. Since its speculated that the Celts invented chain mail armor. I also can understand that chain mail must've been expensive for the common man and leather armor wasn't practical in Celtic society because they were cattle herders. So do we know definitively what the Celtic warrior culture was like? Should I take this documentary as a grain of salt or is it truly the best understanding we have of this ancient people?

I'm doing some worldbuilding, and trying to figure out if/why anyone would have major settlements in such terrain besides for peat extraction. They seem pretty inhospitable otherwise. Are "swamp people" much of a thing, historically, or is it pure fantasy?

I found out she died from Typhus months after arriving. What were they doing that whole time?

I heard one historian, who I don't know at all, say the crisis that broke apart ancient Mesopotamia was their discovery of ego. Any idea what he is refering to and when this truly might have been?

I'm not entirely clear on the subject, but there's no more congresses of it, right? The same that created International Women's Day?

How did they work? Was it just a steel ball that they fired and hoped would hit a bunch of soldiers or did they explode and kill with shrapnel? Explain like I'm 5 please

Watching the extra history video on the siege of vienna they made comments on the difficulty of coalition warfare and mentioned there being contention over who would command the right flank because it was a position of honor. Is this true and why would the right flank be the honorable position as opposed to commanding the center or left flank? Was there any special honor in defeating the enemy's right flank?

I'm looking to do some research on the history of homosexuality in the pre-modern Middle East. Basically anything from the Golden Age of Islam until WW1. I've been thinking about researching this topic for a long time, and I finally got myself to stop procrastinating and ask for books on this subreddit. Most of what I know comes from a few wikipedia articles that I barely remember.

​

Any recommendations?

Today it is nigh impossible to go throughout your day without humming or thinking about a song, let alone the intrusive melodies that just won't go away.

Do we know of anyone actually documenting this all the way back to the first classical symphony?

Or was it just coincidence that the organ they picked happened to be the only one that could actually regrow? If yes than how did they manage to come by that finding and what were the odds that somebody could undergo having their abdominal cavity opened up multiple times in that era?

In my recent reading about my home country during WW2, I noticed that we sometimes used steel tracks for our tanks due to rubber shortages - Canadian Dry Pin tracks, and I've had trouble finding specific, cited information on these things - how well did they perform in use? Were there significant differences in combat performance between tanks with CDP tracks versus traditional rubber tracks? If so, what were these differences, especially in terms of performance in different types of terrain (specifically, I am most interested in performance in snow and on rough terrain/without roads)

Thanks in advance for any information you can provide.

Edit: Apologies for the typo in the title.

I mean, did they believe the planet Venus was actually Venus, or the eye of Venus, or something that was sacred to Venus... or did they just name it Venus to honour her, like they'd name a mountain or forest after a god?

I am going to start by stating my understanding which might be wrong. My understanding is that mass cavalry charges did not really start until the high middle ages with the invention of the lance, high backed saddle, and stirrups. These knights were heavily armored and the horses had blinders right? My understanding is that it was a very unique type of cavalry that could smash into infantry head on right? Would the medieval heavy cavalry have been effective charging into something like a well trained Macedonian Phalanx or any truly disciplined and well trained force?

In earlier eras or in any other type of cavalry, I think that cavalry was used to harras, hit and run, and hit the flanks, or for horse arches.

Could the kind of cavalry that we see in the Ride of the Rohirrim have successfully charged into a mass formation? They did not look that heavily armored. The horses did not have blinders. I do not see high backed saddles. Would the horses get injured and the riders thrown from their horses?

We are having a debate about this on /r/fantasy. So I figured I would ask the history experts.

I have been doing some reading up on the Achaemenid Persian Empire, particularly the Persian Wars and the empire after them. I have found books and online sources saying the Ancient Greek sources are extremely biased against the Persians and often conflate their own importance, suggesting that after the war with Greece, Persia fell into a decline.

​

Yet from what I have read of Herodotus's Histories, he seems to be about as reasonable as could be expected. I am aware that many of his stories are inaccurate/fabrications, especially the dialogue, but overall, he seems fairly objective.

​

Can anyone direct me to some primary sources from Greece that portray the Persians in the extremely negative light that I have read about?

Have any regimes or political ideologies use this conflict to further their narratives?

Let me preface this by saying I'm not sure if this is the right subreddit to go to, but it seemed like at least a good place to start. TL;DR at bottom.

​

This December I'm getting my Bachelors in History as well as minors in Latin and Mathematics. I would like to go on and get my masters and doctorate in history as well. My professors have all said that it is crucial as a professional historian to specialize on a time and place. I know I want to study Europe in general and Britain in particular, but I am having trouble deciding on a specific time period. Right now I'm thinking either 19th century or Medieval (but even within Medieval I haven't narrowed it down between early, high, or late). I have taken classes on both eras so I have a gist of what they're like, but nothing has really swayed me one way or the other. I'm really hesitant to just jump in because I don't want to be half way through my thesis and discover I don't actually like the subject as much as I thought.

​

I enjoy studying architecture/urban developments, politics, and shifts in cultural values, so those could apply to either era. However, I am also interested in studying the history of sex and sexuality and I think there would be more sources on that in the 19th century. Also, while I will graduate with an understanding of Latin, I don't know French, German, or Danish which would be a problem if I wanted to study Britain in the Middle Ages.

​

So I'm looking for advice on how to choose between one or the other. How did you all choose your field of study? Are there more job prospects in one era or the other? How hampered am I by my limited research languages?

​

TL;DR - I'm stuck trying to decide between studying 19th century or Medieval Britain. I'm asking for help on how should I choose between them.

On that same subject, how did Nazis in Europe see the KKK? Did they have any connections with one another, and did they forge any alliances?