I'm not very familiar with the philology of Ancient Greek texts, so I'd be thankful for some insight here. Here's what I gather, and please correct me if I'm mistaken on any point:

1. Βασιλεύς is the title used for e.g. Odysseus in Homer where we might conceivably understand it as meaning 'chieftain' or 'patriarch' of a smaller community.

2. In Classical writings 'ό Βασιλεύς' without specification usually means the Achaemenid Great King, who is also known as the 'Μεγας Βασιλεύς' or the Βασιλεύς of Persia.

3. (Unsure about this point) The more common title in older Greek writings is Αναξ.

I'd like some help filling in the gaps on how the usage of this royal title evolved before irreversibly becoming linked to Hellenic kingship and eventually the Byzantine Empire. What other Classical monarchical titles were there, if any?

[deleted]

The Reconquista ended in 1492. Contrary to what Spain says about the Reconquista, the Reconquista specified the period from 722 to 1492. The Reconquista was made by Christians to recover the Iberian Peninsula from Muslims.

​

Without Spain, there is no Reconquista. When the Reconquista happened, there were Christian plans to reconquer Spain by 1492. The Muslims managed to take over the Iberian Peninsula, North Africa, the Levant, Iran, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Mesopotamia, Cyprus and parts of South Asia, Central Asia, Georgia and Turkey during the expansion of the Rashidun and Umayyad Caliphates.

​

Were there ever Christian plans to continue the Reconquista into North Africa, the Levant and Mesopotamia after the Reconquista?

For very brief context i've held the opinion that the former had it worse then the latter by a small margin and some friends and I were debating the idea im curious what someone far more educated's opinion is.

Would they be stuck at home? Would families take care of them or would they be destitute beggars?

Is this just due to western romantic orientalism, were shields actually not common with Chinese and Japanese soldiers? If they did use shields, what kind were they?

I trained in school for museum studies, but like many younger historians, I don't work in the field as an adult.

I wanted to get suggestions for any of your favorite primary sources. I love reading from the words of people who lived it, especially the lower classes, soldier's, or common person's perspective. Some of my favorite are "Hardtack & Coffee" & "Co. Aytch" as good alternate looks at the American civil war for the gritty frankness of what life was like in the US 1860s (as an example)

What books would you guys say are your favorites from your period of study? What are the most true to life or stark looks at the time? I'd love to hear everyone's opinions.

edit spelling

Are there any details or has anyone described it anywhere? I know that there's a reason missionary received its name, but what about everything else?

Planes used in Europe seem to commonly have cone shaped propellers while planes from the Pacific were barrel shaped. Was there a specific reason for this? Google didn't help.

He ran away from home at sixteen (maybe a little younger not sure) because he was being physically abused by his father. There is a general understanding in my family that he fought against the nazis at some point during the war, but no one seems to really know the details as he never talked about the war. He died in 2008 and I have been wondering about his story. I know that many Romani people were killed in the concentration camps and I know he was at least part Romani and had distinctive black hair and tanned skin. What is the likelihood that he was in a concentration camp given the tattoo ? Is there any other possible explanation ? Im planning on speaking to my grandmother about it explicitly later today, but she has a hard time talking about the war as well as she was forcefully relocated to Germany at around seven to eight years old during the war and forced to work in a factory and may not be very open to talking about it.

EDIT: Just to clear up something - I am not going to "interrogate" my grandmother and understand that talking about traumatic experience is not something that should be forced (I am in grad school to become a clinical psychologist and work a lot with trauma survivors).

We all know that North Vietnam was backed by China and South Vietnam was backed by the US. This is what I know about Vietnam's differences between North and South.

In the North they followed Mahayana Buddhism which was more "liberal" to a degree, while the South followed Hinayana Buddhism which was more "conversative"

for many centuries prior to French colonisation of Vietnam, the North was controlled by the Kingdom of Dai Viet while the South was controlled by the Kingdom of Champa

the Later Li, Tran, and Later Le dynasties in centuries past were centred in the North and were pro-Chinese while the Tay-Son rulers and Nguyen dynasties were based more in the South and preffered international help from countries such as France

I'm not the best with Vietnamese history so please correct me on any of these. French colonisation may have blurred or pretty much wiped out the differences between North and South so all that I just listed may be irrelevant by the time of the Vietnam War. Am I wrong to assume that there are some cultural diferences as well as the political?

As far as I'm concerned pikes have a larger reach and we're likely more of a threat to cavalry, so why were they mostly completely replaced by bayonets?

Playing AC Odyssey over the last two weeks has re-piqued my interest in Greek mythology. If I remember correctly, Cronus married his sister Rhea, while their son Zeus married his sister, Hera. Seeing how both the most powerful of the Olympians as well as their predecessors, the Titans, married within the family, were incestuous relationships considered acceptable in Ancient Greece?

If he hated a race and wanted to eliminate them, why didn’t he kill them all immediately? Instead he just sat them all in a camp and slowly starved them.

So WW2 history interests me, but I’m not an expert so bear with me

Hitler viewed the people of the word in almost like a ranking list of different groups of people, for example, he viewed Eastern Europeans with some respect and saw them as a reasonable people, but saw Italians as quite far below himself and the aryan Germans

My question is, how did hitler view the Americans? Did he see them as a respectable group of people? Or did he see them like he saw Italians? Did he see them as weak and feeble compared to his own people?

Thanks in advance everyone

Today marks 240 years since Captain Cooks' death,

In the admittedly little research I have done on the matter it's striking just how different second hand and even primary sources are when it comes to Captain Cooks' death and the attempted kidnapping of Kalaniʻōpuʻu. All of the primary accounts I've found are British witnesses, such as William Bligh. Are their much in terms of oral histories from the indigenous Hawaiians to corroborate or contradict the British accounts? And generally speaking is there any sort of modern scholarly consensus on what might've happened on February 14th, 1779?

I was having a discussion with a friend about the injustices of Native American people, overall they obviously suffered from mass killings, and in Canada they suffered from residential schools. And it got me thinking, being born in a South American country, I never really thought about indigenous people from South America. Sure there was the conquistadors and everything until around maybe 16th-17th century (from the little knowledge I have) but you don't hear anything about the treatment about Native Americans/indigenous people of south america. Is there any reason why?