As impressive as it was am I wrong for thinking the battle was entirely pointless, In terms of the impact it had on the war at large?

If it was then why did Leonidas do it, he was a tactician after all.

For example, dropping it off the coast of Japan, close enough for the Japanese to see its power but far enough so that casualties would be minimal. Or simply sending Japan the video footage of the Trinity test. The hope being that Japan would surrender after seeing it.

Title says it all. If this question is out of place then please direct me to the appropriate sub if you know of one. Thanks.

​

I've always heard that a lot of historians don't agree with 'Guns, Germs, and Steel'. And I've always wondered why. I've never read the book, but I've always been interested. However I don't know if it's worth my time, however.

Do historians have a problem with the georgrapic determinism it proposes? If so, why, and what's the alternative? Or is the whole overarching theory of history Diamond proposes? Or something else entirely?

Thanks in advance.

I am writing something set in the Victorian era and I want to make sure it is accurate/plausible. Would a British anthropologist (a lone scientist with no intentions of conquest) have been allowed into German East Africa in the 1880s? I don't fully understand which European power (if any) dominated the Zanzibar coastal region prior to German East Africa. Would a British man have been welcomed into the Sultanate of Zanzibar in the 1870s? How about Portuguese Mozambique during this era? When I say "welcomed" I mean been allowed by local authorities to conduct an archaeological dig and investigation in the area.

Basically my question above. How were severe reaction to allergies seen by the population prior to anyone knowing what an allergy is?

When did we discover allergies?

And why?

Franks in France, Visigoths in Spain, Lombards in Italy, Saxons in England...

When was the last law that provided for a distinction between them? Or the last mention of the noble class's foreign provenance?

I know that in 17th century England there were still mentions about the noble class being of Norman descent ruling over Saxon subjects, 600 years after the conquest.

In combat, using bandoliers to load powder instead of paper cartridges (specifically around the 30 years war/English Civil War period), did soldiers bother to take the time to load wadding into their muzzleloaders? If they did, did they load it only between the powder and ball, only over the ball, or both?

Hello historians. I have recently become enamored with the 18th century. I've read a couple books of various events, however everything is so intertwined I was hoping to step back and get a broader view to hopefully gain a better understanding of how every empire was involved. I'd like to start early in the 18th century, go over the French Indian War, the troubles and pressures this caused in both Europe and the America's. Then the American revolution, spreading to the various skirmishes in Europe and French revolution(s), including Napoléon expansion of French land and the alliances this forced other nations to make.

I understand that this is a tall order and the book I am seeking may not actually exist - however I figured if it does, you all would know!

Almost from the very beginning Jordan was inclined to make peace with Israel. Since the time of his grandfather they were more open to discussion with the zionists and he had secret talks with Israel since the 60s/70s and only made peace much later because of the Palestinian situation. My question is why was he like that at a time when most of the arab world was still looking to engage Israel in battle. Especially Egypt and syria with the leadership of Nasser. Hussein only joined the six day war after he was lied to by Nasser that things are going very well. What made Jordan/king Husseins position so different from the rest of the arab world? does it ahve to do with his grandfather being murdered by a Palestinian? Thanks in advance.

​

Just want to clarify i'm not doubting why he would want peace in general, just wondering why he wanted it long before everyone else.

First thing first sorry if this is the wrong place to ask this, but I spent the weekend looking for solution but couldn't find one.

For a project (illustration) I am looking for the ancient greek translation of what Diogene the Cynic said to alexander the great "Stand out of my sunlight".

Problem is I don't speak greek at all and either I found the full text from plutarch or just english translation without the sources.

I may have found a solution but couldn't verify it (and can't write it here as I don't know how to write in Cyrillic on my phone).

Thanks in advance and sorry if this was not the good place for this question.

Would Indians of, say, the Mauryan period have viewed the Iranians as a related people? Is there any evidence of the first Parsis who arrived in India observing the similarities between Avestan and Sanskrit?

​

I was listening to a lecture by Professor Edward Ayers and he claimed that in slave markets of the south there were sections dedicated to "fancy girls". Slaves that were specifically intended to be purchased as mistresses or concubines of slave owners. He further explained that these girls could be inspected "more thoroughly." Is this accurate? Was this acknowledged by larger Southern society? What were peoples attitudes towards it?

In this famous speech, the very last few lines make reference to "the New World"

we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.

Is that a direct reference to the United States? Or some other meaning?