I get why currency works--you can't get change for a cow--But how did anybody decide the value of money when it was first introduced and how did groups of people just decide to use it? I presume it would have to be a situation along the lines of "Ok, tomorrow morning, we start using these coins." But what do I know?

I’ve always wondered how very powerful and famous persons posessions disappear. I was thinking about Elizabeth I specifically, as was known to have lots of fancy items but only one ring survives that I know of (but any royalty begs the same question). What happened to all the other things like her necklaces and and rings? It seems like those things would be handed down... where does the jewelry end up when royalty passes on and how does it go “missing”?

British historic architecture seems very simple compared with fellow European nations like France.

​

Why is this? Considering Britain's empire wealth that is generated from, surely the British could've put that wealth to impressive buildings/palaces?

In different periods in history it was common for armies to be followed by groups of women: wives of soldiers, cooks, nurses, prostitutes, seamstresses, etc. Did this happen at all in times of the Roman Empire? For example, when the Romans invaded Britain, would women have come close behind the legions?

I am currently reading The Origins of Totalitarianism by Hannah Arendt and finding it absolutely fascinating. As a former history student I have some knowledge of Hitler, Nazi Germany and the Holocaust but not at this level.

The general regard for, and popularity of, her book have lead me to trust it as a source and the writing style and copious footnotes further establish its validity in my eyes, but as someone who knows next-to-nothing of the history of the Jewish people in Europe I have nothing to hold the narrative against.

So my question is, in its simplest form, does her narrative and explanation of Jewish history still hold water today, or has the consensus view changed since it was written? Are there any caveats/alternative narratives I should at least be aware of?

I began to wonder about this when Arendt makes claims about the self imposed nature of Jewish 'separateness' and talks of 'court Jews' and 'exception' Jews. I realised I currently have no knowledge to compare these claims with, and also that most of the praise I have previously come across for the book is in explaining totalitarianism as opposed to the history of the Jewish Race. Perhaps unknown to me this is seen now as less authoritative than other aspects of the book? I doubt it, but I don't know.

I'm looking forward to your enlightening answers and any other info on the book that might be relevant to a semi-newbie to the topic.

also when did weapons start to get classed as heavy and light?

As i read more and more on body building, i started to wonder how was it like to go to gym in ancient times especially in greece (Olympics.)

While watching, and eventually learning to just switch my brain off when it came to narrative, it struck me that there were two options: either the art form had originally evolved to not need a cohesive plot (and perhaps even an deliberately nonsensical plot - it seems like it would have been easier to write something vaguely logical), or that the original audience would have understood it much differently that I did. Or a third option?

Both stopped being colonies around the same time and Vietnam spent 30 years in almost non-stop war like Angola and Mozambique. I used to think that it was because SE Asia had a more complex civilization back in the day but this sub taught me about the civilizations of East and West Africa (in fact Ethiopia was barely even colonized if at all). So what is it then?

I have read the book 1421 from Gavin Menzies and was wondering if really its true or just a haux?

During the Russian Revolution, sailors were one of the main bastions of Bolshevik support. It was sailors that kicked off the German Revolution of 1918. In 1936 the Spanish sailors remained loyal to the Republic, mutinied against their officers and stranded Franco and his troops in North Africa. Goering was supposed to have joked that they had a “conservative army, a Nazi air force, and a communist navy.” I think I’ve also read about British sailors striking because they thought they would be sent to fight the Bolsheviks in Russia.

Even today I think the US Navy has a reputation of being one of the more liberal branches of the military.

I've been curious lately about the sociolinguistics of situations where a small ruling class came in speaking a different language than the people they were ruling over, and how those situations played out-- the Norman Conquest, etc.

​

I have the general feeling that the British in India might have learned various languages of India to the extent that they needed to for business purposes, but they probably weren't, say, speaking Hindi or Tamil at home with their families. But I really don't know. Would someone who studies this time and place be able to weigh in?

​

Thanks!

I am writing an essay behind the motivations of Julius Caesar's assassination and I have to read through a variety of ancient source documents, but I am having trouble understanding what exactly Brutus is talking about in his letter to Cicero. As in, what exactly was Brutus so mad at Caesar about that would cause the assassination? Can someone please provide an explanation of what Brutus is saying in his letter? thank you!

edit: spelling

​

When monks and scribes draw a bestiary, do they believe the animals depicted all existed? Were horses, zebra, unicorn and giraffe considered essentially the same class of beasts?