Romans(republic and empire)are known for being clean and bathing often(although they didn't use soap), and medieval ages are known for being stibky and dirty(even though peasants did wash themselves in rivers from time to time).

Now what about Byzantines? They are both Roman, but at the same time medieval people. I assume their higiene declined when the empire was on it's downfall, but overall, how does it compare?

P.s. bonus question if u know the answer to this: how often was the bath water in Roman baths changed?

Their bodies that is? And are there known mass Graves in Europe or were they all cremated?

I'm not sure if this question is better suited for here or the general history subreddit, but I'm looking for recommendations on books and the like about Ancient Greece. I'm currently on the third and final part of Dan Carlin's King of Kings about the Achemanid Persian Empire and that, and too much AC Odyssey has sparked an interest in me about Ancient and Classical Greece.

I'm already a fan of military history and figure Osprey would have some good books on the military aspects, but does anyone have recommendations for the non-military, cultural things?

As an American distinctly interested in the Civil Rights Movement and the events that lead up too, happened during, and were caused by the Movement I have this question.

Not many textbooks discuss the effect that the assassination of Luther had on the Civil Rights Movement. Surely the unlawful death of their biggest advocate and voice caused unrest of some sort. Less broad questions than above are these.

What effect did the assassination of Luther have on the furthering of the Movement?

How did the political, cultural, and moral goals of the movement change regarding the death of Luther, if they changed at all?

Did the death of Luther cause a significant rise or fall in acceptance of the movement by the politicians and general population?

What were the lasting effects on the African American communities in that time regarding the acceptance of the movement after Luther’s death?

Since Christian minorities were for a long time a far more important aspect of Great Iranian society than they are today, their decilne has long been a subject of interest to me. The bog-standard answer you get when searching for info on this is some variant of "Timur slaughtered and/or mass-converted most of them". While I've no doubt of Timur's brutality and cavalier engagement in forced conversions, there are a lot of confounding factors in the centuries surrounding him, such as the general chaos of earlier Mongol invasions and the emergence of various radical and militant religious groups in the post-Mongol era (e.g., the Qizilbash), and eventually the brutal policies of the Safavids. One thing that caused me to raise my eyebrows was that for example, the policies of Shah Abbas toward Armenian Christians seem to have been ostensibly pretty similar to those toward Zoroastrians, including relocation to the capital, yet are described in far more neutral terms in many sources.

Thus, I wonder if Timur deserves as much blame as he is commonly assigned in this matter?

There seems to be a lot of talk about citizenship in the US. It seems pretty easy to attain citizenship. (Aside from the number of applicants.) You can apply, you can be born on US soul, or you can be born to an existing US citizen. It seems that US citizenship in almost viral by design.

Were these rules typical at the time? Or were America's citizenship laws seen as advanced/backwards when they were put in place?

I find it odd that they surrended after winning on the eastern front. Can anyone tell me about this?

For example, steam-powered battering rams or cannons would arguably be better as siege weapons than catapults or trebuchets, the rotational nature of the aeolipile might inspire better chariots, etc. They might have been developed further given the long "lead time" since its invention until the Industrial Revolution. What were the impediments towards their wide acceptance and employment in various fields of human interest?

[deleted]

I was recently in a discussion with a friend regarding what she believed to be her family crest. She comes from, what I assume, is a decently well known family in France. (DaBlanc) This led to a greater discussion of the validity of crests as they are so often referenced when someone looks into their heritage and if hers was valid. Per example, and out of interest, I included what I believe she found regarding her crest in the comments. Can anyone verify that this was the crest of the DaBlanc family? It describes a "gold in the arm of flesh of a silver necktie and having three flowers of azure.."

The French and British were the ones who put the humiliating terms of the Treaty of Versailles, yet the occupation of France was a lot milder compared to what happened in Poland and occupied Soviet Union. Why didn't Hitler rail against the French, the ancient enemy of Germany, like he did against the Slavic people?

As the title says, how were people able to get out of an airship being incinerated mid air? There aren't exactly very many escape routes in that situation.

Hi all,

I am at the end of grad school now with my thesis defense coming up. Objectively speaking, I can say that graduate school (I am in the field of history) has been on the whole enjoyable and smooth. I even have a nice postdoc lined up for after graduation and most people are congratulating me on how things are going.

However, ever since I started graduate school, I have been feeling unsure and anxious about the possibility of not properly acknowledging the work that others have done on topics similar to mine. I am here not talking about the fear of having exactly copied the ideas of others (after all I would know if I had and given how anxious I am about this I am especially sure I have not done this). Rather, I am worried that I either overlooked or misunderstood the points of other scholars and therefore might have argued/said things that are similar to something that has already been said in the literature.

Basically, at least in the history field it is quite common when a new book comes out that some older scholars might grumble and say "but I have already (more or less) said that in book x,y and z." Normally such comments are limited to gossip or a note in a review that the author covered some old ground or that some parts of what the author covers/argues is well known to scholars in field x.

As long as the consequences of my possible mistake would be limited to gossip or a bad review, I would not mind or at least be able to deal with it I think. But given that I suffer from anxiety and (I guess like many graduate students) imposter syndrom, I am afraid that even one minor criticism of not acknowledging/misrepresenting the work of others would lead to me losing my academic career. While I cannot think of an actual case of another scholar where such a thing happened (except for clear cases of plagiarism in terms of verbatim copying of words), it is still something that comes up regularly in my mind.

Now that I am finishing grad school and my thesis and later my book will be there for everyone to see (+I will be on my own without my committee), I am even more afraid of such possible criticism and my inability to deal with it.

Therefore, I wanted to ask to what extent such fears are justified (i.e. being heavily criticized for possibly overlooking/misunderstanding something in the literature to the point of losing one's career) and how others deal with this kind of problem and anxiety?

Thanks!

(that is, were other colonies being taxed, and, if they were, were they given representation? Were the American colonies expecting special treatment?)