These days we say we live in 2018 what did they say as we just refer to it as 200 ad.

My question really stems deeper in the sense of have towns arisen as a result of the interstate system or was the interstate system built in mind to make the most of connecting major towns (not necessarily cities) together? For instance, a state may have one interstate running east to west (Nebraska, for example), and it seems a majority of towns exist along the interstate. I assume connecting major economic sources together in the most efficient manner was a key to design.

Edit: grammar

Completed in 1938, as the Second World War raged on. When did it start? Was the Church ever in danger either directly or indirectly?

Given the modern political climate of say a company in Saudi Arabia having a tough time doing business in Israel, were things similarly back in the 30s and 40s where investments were restricted?

Edit: I have been informed that, in fact, 1938 was a year of peace and not war.

My school teacher told me that it was NOT about slavery, but my recent internet searches have confused me. So was it, or wasn't it?

How accepted is the spartan myth among historians today

The Mughal Empire ruled over the majority of the Indian subcontinent, but were there every any ambitions of conquest or colonization in Indochina or anywhere farther west?

I used the search bar and the FAQ and the questions on this topic aren't addressing what I'm trying to figure out.

I recently heard a take on the Holodomor, admittedly from people that would be considered more or less Soviet apologists (aka Tankies) that the famine was mostly a result of Western propaganda. They claim that the primary sources from the time are deeply flawed, that photos from other events were used as evidence, that accounts from people that weren't in Ukraine at the time were overly relied upon and that one of the main accounts cited by historians was admitted to be embellished by its author.

They make further claims are that the reported number of victims doesn't add up, that the estimates used to gauge the number of deaths are not derived from any scientific methods and that WWI, the Civil War and Soviet reclassification of ethnic groups accounts for the dip in the number of "Ukrainians."

Most damningly, they claim that William Randolph Hearst (who was sympathetic to fascism and well known for "Yellow Journalism" in the run up to the Spanish-American War) was deliberately sensationalist in his coverage of the USSR and largely responsible for pushing the narrative of the Famine in the Western press. And, finally, that the story of the Holodomor was generally accepted as embellished or fabricated until the beginning of the Cold War when it was resurrected as a way to tarnish the USSR and placate a number of far-right Ukrainian nationalists that had received asylum in the West.

Help me out /r/AskHistorians. Some of this reminds me of the ridiculous conspiracy theories that surround Holocaust denialism. But, I also know that Western countries were not above pushing narratives that might be less than truthful as part of Cold War propaganda.

So what gives? What really happened in Ukraine and how do we know? What sources are reliable? Which are somewhat biased and which can we right off completely?

I have heard alot of kurds, especially kurdish nationalists saying that they are descendants of the medes/median empire. Is it true? Is there any actual proof where kurds are direct descendants of the medians? Do they speak a similar language or something that makes them connected to medians?

It seems that cannons would be able to greatly increase their range by firing a steep parabolic arc, like a mortar.

I've seen primitive mortars used as seige weapons, squat things with loose projectiles, sometimes explosive projectiles. I wonder why the same concept couldn't be used for a proper cannon; longer barrel, precisely measured powder, tight projectile, etc.

I can understand why a flat firing angle would be preferable from a ship, but from a fortress, or perhaps protecting coastal settlement from attacking ships, why wouldn't they ever fire along a high ballistic arc?

So, studying the development of attic democracy, I learn how ancient Greece went from an aristocracy to timocracy with Solon, to Oligarchy(with democratic system) with Cleisthenes, to direct democracy with Pericles.

Solon got killed by Peisistratos who took power then. Now the internet says his reign was ended (while his sons were in power) by sparta around 510BC. How do Cleisthenes reforms fit in there, which happened around the same time (510BC on my paper but I guess the exact years aren't accurate)?

While I was in Rome recently, at the Palatine Hill, my guide claimed that in the next few years after Constantine went to found Constantinople, most of the nobles went with him, as did all the engineers and architects to build the new capital, meaning Rome suddenly started to decline. My impression was that Rome's decline (as a city) was a later thing. After all, I assume Constantine left an Emperor of the West behind (though... I don't know who).

Paratroopers had been used to great effect in previous invasions, so if the English channel was a huge impediment to a land invasion, why wouldn't the Germans drop troops into England from planes? Obviously they couldn't have taken over the UK solely through paratroopers, but one would think that they would be beneficial for sabotage, destroying targets that bombers couldn't reach, or maybe even securing a beachhead.

If so did they cooperate on any extent against the various Shahs of Iran? Did they maintain friendly, indifferent, or spiteful relations?

During the medieval period, the kings would establish a feudal system, which encouraged the establishment of serfdom as agricultural labor. Feudalism and serfdom were established in many parts of Europe, like Germany, France and England, but never fully in Northern Europe. Why was this the case?

Both Germany and Italy provided a lot of support to Franco during the Spanish Civil War. How is it that Spain remained officially neutral (although leaning towards the Axis). Given that Franco "owed them", what machinations were necessary for Spain to remain neutral?

This has always puzzled me. The Spanish Civil War was just 3 years before the official outbreak of WW2. It seems incredible to me that Hitler and Mussolini wouldn't call in their debt on the outbreak of WW2. It seems obvious that they were trying to create a sphere of influence by interceding in the civil war.

What was the fate of German, Austrian, and other nations' prisoners that I assume would be detained on Russian / Soviet territory? Russia was in a state of civil war after all. Were all of them released and that's that?

As a Canadian (British English) I’ve always found the more phonetic American English very strange.

Centre vs Center Phase vs Faze ...

I know languages evolve naturally, as does speech. I was once told by a prof that due to the Great Vowel Shift (1350-1600’s) in England, the way we speak in (parts) of North America is likely closer to how people spoke Shakespeare’s time than how the Brits speak today.

So when did American English evolve from British English, and more curiously, why?

Was it a big “F You” to England? Was it a school system issue? Did it have to do with teaching a very complicated language to natives?