He makes some claims which seem dubious, like in his history of Jim Crow he says that the North invented Jim Crow laws and that black and white city dwellers in the South would share neighborhoods, jobs, and even quarters before the Civil War. Given that he marched with MLK I'm guessing he isn't making these claims as apologetics for Southern pride, but do we have a lot of evidence to support this?

Old poems/songs etc feature things like 'four and twenty blackbirds' which match other languages like German's 'vierundzwanzig' (and I think French does the same?). When did English swap to counting numbers as 'twenty four'?

As we know, the Iceni tribe in Norfolk raised rebellion against Roman rule in ad60 whilst the Governor, Paulinus, was far away ravaging Mona (Anglesey).

He eventually cobbled together part/whole of the XIVth and XXth Legions (the IXth had been badly mauled by Boudica's ambush near Lincoln) to meet him somewhere in the midlands (?) and summoned the IInd Legion - then based in Exeter way to the south.

But the IInd- under it's third-in-command, Poenius Postumus (we assume him to be capable and brave to have achieved this level of command and trust?) failed to join him. Why? Is there something missing in our known (Roman-sourced) history of this event? Was the rebellion more widespread?

Were they being besieged at their camp by the local Dumnonii tribe, maybe having allied themselves with the Iceni- as had the Trinovantes and others?

Presumably the top two commanders of the IInd were away serving with Paulinus (?) and must have issued orders, if Paulinus hadn't?

Had Postumus heard of the disastrous fate of the IXth?

As I understand, Plato, Herodotus, Socrates and Solon had a;; stated that Atlantis was a real city/state.

​

As far as I know none of these men were known for rabble-rousing / conspiracies.

​

Yet modern History seems to put Atlantis in the "fictional" category. I do not understand this position.

​

It seems less likely that these men would have conspired together on this claim than for the other possible explanation to be the correct one.

Please educate me!

If anyone can point me to a book on 17-18th (1650-1750) century Caribbean history, you would be forever in my debt.

In the reading I've done so far, it seems the French, English, Dutch, and Spanish all equally profited from and ruled the West Indies. Is this a valid claim?

Did any of these 4 powers ever fall heavily to the wayside. Were the French and English the real superpowers, or did the Dutch and Spanish also maintain a competetive economic prescence in the region between 1650-1750?

To clarify. I have found a litany of books and sources on pirates and privateers during this era. What is lacking is good books and sources on the actual brokerage of power in the area, as well as the economic development and growth therein.

Sources on the difference between French, Spanish, Dutch and English purposes, goals, and uses for the West Indies during this time period. How did their economies differ, internal policies, class structures, etc.

[deleted]

I’m thinking about things like the invention of refined white cane sugar, the invention of the electric oven, the microwave, outdoor grilling with propane, etc. I’m interested in a historians view on what the most important inventions were that shaped home cooking in American history.

I'd like to read one book from the American POV and another from the British POV. Or perhaps there is a good book that covers both sides without bias.

Thanks!

I hear this all the time, about Cleopatra being supposedly one of the most beautiful women in history. Is there any evidence of this?

[deleted]

Wikipedia says that “despite the flood of new weapons systems unveiled by the British, Germans, French, Austro-Hungarians, Italians, and others in the war in Europe, the Army was paying scant attention. For example, it was making no studies of trench warfare, poison gas, heavy artillery, or tanks and was utterly unfamiliar with the rapid evolution of Aerial warfare.”

That seems batshit crazy. The Army literally sat on its hands and refused to learn anything from 1914-1918? Is this true? The Wiki doesn’t offer any cites; does anyone have some good ones?

One of the most common rewards that Rome had to offer for services during its imperial and republic eras was citizenship and one of the major rewards for the allied auxiliary troops was citizenship for both them and their children at the end of the service term.

I suppose it wouldn't be hard for citizens to be identified in the early days of the republic, due to their somewhat homogenous appearance, however in the imperial days, we would likely have gauls, germans, greeks, iberians, egyptians, lybians and phoenicians holding the title of citizen, so in a situation like a census, how would a roman official go about determinating who was a citizen and who wasn't? Was there some sort of documentation that could prove it?

The Constitution says you have to be 25 to be a Representative, 30 to be a Senator, and 35 to be POTUS or vPOTUS. Is there some significance to these ages in the late 1700s?

Throughout school (at least in the USA) we hear so much about the Third Reich, Nazi Empire, war crimes, etc., but outside of Pearl Harbor and Iwo Jima, little is said of Japan.

What was their motivation? What did they align with Germany for? What did they hope to gain?

by factified i mean gone back and updated the stuff he wrote with what we now know to be true? maybe edit or annotate some of the stuff? I read it a couple years back and really enjoyed it, but as to the dolphin saving that one guy and giant gold digging ants it's clear to see why he's also called the father of lies. Doing a couple basic google searches and reading FAQ's and old posts here over the years the best i have found is things like Salon/The Atlantic articles where they talk about how hilariously wrong he was, but i haven't seen a revised copy of the histories.

I know that this is kind of a large time period, so apologies for that.

​

But I was reading a book describing how in Europe, members of the catholic clergy sometimes acted as members of the ruling elite. Meaning they participated in many aspects of life that we wouldn't associate with the church, and that they also moved in many of the same social circles as members of the aristocracy. I've also read about many examples of bishops and priests having very "human" motivations and behavior. Would they have had "honor" similar to other nobles? And if they were in such close contact and also possibly in competition with nobles for power or money, would they ever have participated in duels? Could a member of the clergy have challenged someone? And if their honor was challenged and they couldn't duel, what recourse did they have? Also, were they present at duels (to administer last rites, ect)?

​

And then I became curious if in later centuries, protestant clergy might have participated too. And then what differences the catholic and protestant religions might have had in regards to dueling.