The Romans tended to say "oh, your God Lenus is just Mars" and you get places like Bath in Britain, where a Celtic water-goddess shrine became a temple of Minerva.

Did this cause a lot of tension, revolts, etc, with locals insisting that Rome was wrong, the gods were not the same, and rebelling against attempts to Romanise their gods? Or was it generally just not a big deal?
(I know the Jews did revolt over this, but that's why I specified pagans.)

Hello. I'm trying to track down credible sources that might help me understand the continuity of Jewish culture. There are no more Thracians, Babylonians, Asyrians etc., yet Jewish culture, which was contemporary to those just mentioned, has survived. The question of why this is so has always intrigued me. If you could direct me to any good scholarly works that address the question I'd appreciate it very much.

Many thanks in advance.

​

There was a treaty after the Glorious Revolution between the Dutch and English that stated they would share naval power to combat the French but it was agreed that the two countries would keep a ratio of ships, somewhere along the lines of of 5 English to 3 Dutch ships. Why would the Dutch agree to this if William III was Dutch himself?

By different I mean they speak a Language distinct from neighbouring Slavic languages (Albanian is a Language isolate), have a different religion and lived in clans up until the last century. Could this be attributed to the geography of the region which kept Albania isolated or did the Ottoman influence contribute to this isolation?

If King X send a letter to King Y how did Y verify that the letter was actually from X and not from someone who impersonate X and just forged his seal ? Was there any documented cases of miscommunication where people went to war over a forged letter?

As title says. Not really a specific historical question, but I would appreciate a recommendation. I'm very interested in all the major ancient wonders, not just the seven that Philo wrote down. I've gained a new appreciation for how many years of effort it took to make all of these. Never in my lifetime will I see a feat of such magnitude started, progressed, or completed. The Eiffel Tower is great and all, but it didn't take 120 years to build.

Other general books about the ancient world are also appreciated. No such thing as too many recommendations!

Thanks in advance.

So this is kind of a broad, and possibly historiography question, but I'm working on a local history project and there's lots of gaps in the record. In general, when historians experience such gaps what is the typical strategy for finding a narrative? Or, maybe, put it another way, when the records for an event, notable individual, or time period are rare and scattered how do you go about closing those gaps?

​

I realize this question probably has tons of possible answers, but I really respect the people that post answers here and so I figured someone might have some ideas.

Was European leaders' belief in Christianity strong enough that the mere threat of excommunication enough to bend them to the Popes' will? Did the Middle Ages Popes possess some sort of hard power that I'm not aware of?

As far as I know, most scholars date Sahih Bukhari to 870 AD and they date Sahih Muslim even later placing them at least 230 years late from the events they narrate. Why are they dated so late?

Can I also get a source for the often-cited "Bukhari only picked 7,000 hadith narrations as authentic out of 600,000 hadith narrations"?

According to history Africa was the first continent to host modern day humans. From Africa people started moving out all over the world. The question is why does it seem like other continents such as Europe and the Americas advance technologically faster than Africa did. Africa had human life centuries before Europe or the Americas but those places had much more advanced technology for being colonized for a much shorter time. Another way to put this is why did Africa never get to a point of 'advancement' until the Europeans colonized.

​

Forgive me if this makes no sense but I have a legitimate question but may not be able to explain it correctly.

The declaration of independence declared the colonies independent from Britain, so why were we fighting the British until the treaty of Paris was signed? Also, what is the difference between the declaration of independence and the treaty of Paris?

I know that it was sometimes (not sure how often) intentionally spread for ethnic cleansing purposes, and that the colonists and explorers were systemically brutal and terrible to the natives.

But if these people were naturally susceptible to catching European diseases due to lack of exposure in the Americas and they naturally spread like wildfire and decimated the population, wouldn't something like that have been inevitable (assuming technology would lead globalization and cross-continent communication to happen at some point)?

I'm sure the Europeans could have washed their hands and coughed into their elbows more, but was something like that actually feasible at the time? Or was there no way the native population could have survived?

Forgive me please in advance, because my copy of Goldsworthy disappeared during a recent move, as things tend to do.

Who led cohorts during post-Marian reforms (and pre late/late empire developments)? This is not mentioned in the cohort or Roman military org articles on Wikipedia and I don’t recall an answer in Goldsworth. Similarly, who led maniples pre-Marian reforms? For the later question, I assume a junior equestrian, and for the former I’m assuming a junior equestrian or an experienced centurion. But I real have no idea. OR was there no direct commander of cohorts, aside from the legatus legionis (legionary commander?)

Second question, within a cohort would centuries be directed for individual action, in the way companies have been? Or would the battalion equivalent (the cohort) effectively operate solely as single unit, with any individual century movement being undertaken in a centurion’s initiative or direct order from legionary command, thus negating the need for a cohort commander?

Thank you in advance? Also, any sources/book recommendations would be appreciated!

I recently borrowed both volumes of the Duchesse D'Abrantès Madame Junot's "Memiors of Napoleon" from my grandparents' house. I was wondering when the editions I have were published, since they have these really interesting marbled covers, and with a little research I've determined that they're first edition copies from 1867. I was totally stunned by how old these two books were, especially considering their great condition! I also own a copy of John Gillies's "History of the World" from 1809, which is definitely the oldest book in my house, and it's in good condition as well. It's incredible to me that books this old can stay intact so long and then fall into the possession of someone as unqualified as me!

​

So I was wondering; from what eras of history do we still have a lot of surviving books? How old are the oldest books you've encountered in person? How old does a book have to be before it belongs in a museum instead of an antique store? I'm completely ignorant on the subject of historical book making and publishing, so I'd love to hear any insight.

Everything from state laws to voting habits, it is clear that Utah is heavily dominated by a faith that isn’t in the top 20 of most popular religions. I was wondering if there’s a history on how this came to be?

I'm interested in how people who weren't really "invested" in the sectarian conflict were or weren't caught up in it. I've also heard of the rising tide of racism in N.Ireland and I'm interested in how that compares to what was experienced by the same demographics during The Troubles.

This is what I found on Wikipedia about huns: "The Strategikon states the Huns typically used mail, swords, bows, and lances, and that most Hunnic warriors were armed with both the bow and lance and used them interchangeably as needed." My question is: it is possible to use both bow and lance on horseback? I know that other nomadic people used them both, but not by the same person. For example the mongols had both light cavalry with bows and heavy cavalry with lances. But it seems that the huns had some sort of a mix between these two. How did the huns hang their lance while they used the bow(that is what intrigues me)?