I understand that Alexander invaded possibly because of revenge for Xerxes’ destruction of Athens some 150 years prior; indeed, Arrian says exactly this in his writings.

I’ve also read of a riches motive where he needed to pay his army.

Alexander was raised amongst influential people (Olympias, Philip, Aristotle). Philip challenged him to beat his competitors for the throne and said that Macedon was too small for him and Olympias made him think he was descended from gods.

I also understand that time was of the essence given that Philip just finished conquering Greece and the army still had momentum behind it.

Alexander also inherited Philip’s mission to invade Persia.

What important points am I missing? Or is that everything?

How were these conditions different to those in the 13 colonies? Certainly there was a higher percentage of native peoples in the population. Also the administrative infrastructure of Spanish rule instead of British.

​

As an enlightenment thinker, presumably Bolivar would have been an advocate for democracy and rule by the people?

​

Would the geography and physical/climatic differences have anything to do with this? Or Venezuela's economic underpinnings (export based agriculture)?

I'm interested in why medicine and dentistry (and, to some extent, podiatry) seem to be considered so distinct. Why is there a difference in medical education (medical school and M.D./D.O. vs. dental school and D.D.S.)? Did early physicians practice both medicine and dentistry? If there was a split where the two practices became distinct, at what point did it occur? How does the development of current specialties that lie at the intersection of what we consider medicine and dentistry, such as oral surgery, fit into this division?

I understand similar questions have been posted to this subreddit in the past, but I am interested in hearing some new ideas on the subject.

[deleted]

As kids, we were taught that the British abolished the practice of Sati (burning the widow on the pyre of her deceased husband) in India. The reason we read was because the British saw it as an evil practice (which it certainly was!). But I want to understand if they abolished it because they thought it was evil in general, or because it did not align with Christianity as such (so, the abolishment was the result of imposition of a religion on a group of people)?

Happy to clarify if the question doesn’t make sense.

​

The statement is from The Information by James Gleick, claiming that there were no significant developments in logic between the Ancient Greeks and George Boole's The Mathematical Analysis of Logic in 1847.

Assuming this is true, what is the wider background to this breakthrough? Why did thinking start moving again after two and a half thousand years of stagnation?

Hi there, I'm not and historian but I love classical music, and I'm trying to understand better the music of the french 1800 (Chopin, Berlioz, Saint-Saens, Debussy, Ravel, ecc.). I always thought that in school you need to study story and art side by side so that you can understand better the connection between the two areas, but I ended up studying a lot of musicians biographies ignoring the overall context.

Now I'm trying to understand better what it is outside the music field, and I'm asking you: what are the main points to take in mind when you talk about the france history of 1800? Are there in the century some revolution in the politic and religious areas that I need to know?

Hello r/AskHistorians! I hope this doesn't break community rules. As I understand them it does not. My brother (24) has always been deeply passionate about and interested in the study of history. He's wanted for quite some time to pursue an education in history. He hasn't, however, because he worries that career opportunities in the field are incredibly limited. He doesn't think he would want to be a teacher or professor. So, my question is this: how many career opportunities are there for someone who wants to make the study of history their job?

I know there is many copies of the DOI, and the US has the one signed by the Continental Congress. But what did the King do with the one that was sent to him? I can't find anything that says where that copy is today.

The targets are often just people who happen to be in the area at the wrong time. Is this a new concept?

Looking for any insight into what kinds of jobs people worked post WWII, especially after the wall was built. Any information on what kinds of jobs/industries people worked in.

I've sometimes heard it said that when you're watching documentaries and you're seeing footage of B-52 flying in formation or soldiers going over the top, what you're very often seeing is actually just stock footage from training exercises or staged events put together for newsreels and the like. Not all of it, obviously, but that does make a lot of sense, if only as a matter of convenience.

So how much do documentaries tend to rely on footage like that versus actual footage from the field?

If I were a slave-owning farmer in the South prior to the civil war, wouldn't it have been in my best interest to prevent slavery from expanding, since it would allow me to produce crops much cheaper than any new competing farmers out west? Or was the line of thinking more about how it could benefit the country's economic output as a whole?

This post is a question directed to historians themselves as opposed to a question about a particular period in the past.

As the title mentioned, my grandfather passed away earlier this year. Among other things he left behind are a large collection of various memos, technical reports, conference proceedings, and other paperwork from his time working as an executive from the 1950s to the 1980s.

​

I am making this post to ask if such things would have any value to a professional historian whether for a museum, catalog, research, or something else.

I am aware this post is technically about an individual but I am seeking a professional opinion on potentially releasing records from an individual rather than research on said individual. I greatly apologize if this is not the best place for such a question.

Hope this is the right forum for this, but I'm interested in better understanding how different societies form and maintain highly classist structures and institutions. Some of the obvious drivers include education, wealth, and potentially access to healthcare, but how have different - any example will do - nations or societies accomplished this in actuality, and what ultimately brought it to an end?

If there's any Lutheran history buffs here I have a question about the aftermath of Seminex, the 1974 walkout of almost every faculty member and student at Concordia Seminary St. Louis.

I understand what led to the walkout of the students and faculty, and how it led to a realigning of modern American Lutheranism, but I have a question on the immediate aftermath of this event.

Nearly 200 students and approximately 90% of the faculty broke away from Concordia Seminary St Louis. Yet CSSL never closed. However, despite that Seminex insisted they were still part of the Missouri Synod, but the LCMS refused to legitimize them. So how long did it take for CSSL to recoup all the lost students and faculty? Did the Missouri Synod have a shortage of ministers for a while? Most Seminex grads eventually went to the realigned Evangelical Lutheran Church in America in the 1980s, but how did Missouri cope?

This is obscure, but if there's a Lutheran history buff here I'd love to know what happened. Thanks for the insight

As an Orthodox Jew who has recently discovered about the Collapse, I keep trying to find any references and mentions of such a hugely important and popular event in our Torah. By all accounts, an ancient book that claims total factuality towards history of a people who are directly linked to all (or almost all) nations involved in the collapse, SHOULD reference it in some way, no?

Was there any research done in this field?

My best theory is that the story of Exodus tries to appropriate the late bronze collapse of Egyptian empire. But I have no idea if the timeframes fit at all. Also, it makes me wonder whether people as late as 6th century BC were aware of the Collapse and its' causes?