and how did they reach us? can any expert give me an example of the journey of a classical book from its time to us? thanks,
1 Answers 2018-08-21
1 Answers 2018-08-21
1 Answers 2018-08-21
I've been bouncing around prehistoric Wikipedia while trying to fill out some of my knowledge about the world around Ancient Egypt. Something that shocked me was the assertion that horse riding must have predated horse pulling. We have clear evidence of horse pulling via the Standard of Ur from ~2600 BC. There doesn't seem to be evidence of horse riding until much later.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestication_of_the_horse#Driving_versus_riding
This gives us
Thus, on one hand, logic suggests that horses would have been ridden long before they were driven.
What logic is this? In my mind neolithic humans would have understood driving animals (much as driving humans) far better than riding. I assume horses or similar equids were the first ridden animals.
Is there actual evidence to believe that horse riding occurred first? Is this assertion anachronistic as we modern humans associate horses with riding over pulling? Is it possible that horse riding was solely the purview of nomadic tribes for millennia and that early records just wouldn't have shown it?
1 Answers 2018-08-21
I asked this question here over a year ago (though at the time it specified specifically maces) and despite getting a decent number of upvotes, I didn't manage to get the attention of someone who might have held the answer. But my curiosity still remains!
For whatever reason, the internet in general has a distinct lack of medieval smithing techniques *regarding anything that isn't a sword. Thus, I ask the historians if they know what they were?
1 Answers 2018-08-21
This one doesn't seem to have been asked...
Now, the reasons are fairly obvious why the Confederacy didn't want a Union-held fort guarding Charleston. But it's not so obvious why they chose they attack it at that time. Why push the situation into open hostilities at that point? By April 1861 the Confederates had only just begun setting up their intended country, after all.
What if they just stood back? -If the fort started firing on Southern shipping that'd trigger war. The fort, surrounded as it was, would probably have to surrender just the same, but instead the North looks like the aggressors and the South gets a propaganda victory.
If the fort didn't fire on anyone and the status quo continued (the fort was resupplied etc) the Confederates buy time to set up their country and mobilize. Having a tiny Union enclave may have been inconsistent "with the dignity or safety of the State of South Carolina", but if they didn't fire on anything it was of no practical consequence. And in the meantime, maybe northern opinion would change in favor of abandoning it? It didn't seem like the South had much to lose in that regard, anyway.
So it seems to me the South would've had everything to gain by stalling the outbreak of hostilities as long as possible.. yet they fired first. Am I missing something? Was there a strategy or was it just hotheadedness and impatience on their part?
1 Answers 2018-08-21
I've been reading about military juntas and I can't really understand why they were so prominent in LA history. Is it because the army was given enormous power? How exactly did military leaders abuse instabilities in LA countries to come to power? Why couldn't previous governments prevent the coup happening? Also, what's the legacy of military rulers in different countries of LA when it comes to politics, economy?
1 Answers 2018-08-21
Specifically, two women swore to "never dislike each other, to never speak ill of each other, and that they will be nothing but the best of friends" under a witness
1 Answers 2018-08-21
I’ve developed an interest in the History of Southern Africa, particularly Zimbabwe, Can anyone recommend good books that cover the history of this region,
3 Answers 2018-08-21
Would it even possible for someone to become a historian if they were unable to read original sources in the language they were written in?
1 Answers 2018-08-21
I was reading into a (psuedo)archaeological belief by a collection of people who claim that New Zealand was previously populated by red-haired caucasians, either Celts or an Indo-Aryan tribe from India, and that they are the reason why some (supposedly non-mixed) Maori have striking red hair and green eyes, as a documentary on the subject was just recently pulled from New Zealand television amidst a storm of criticism.
I was reading through this blog of people involved who made claims that they found West Eurasian skeletons in some Northland caves that a university refused to have DNA tested (as usual psuedohistory tends to co-habitate with conspiracy theories about why it is not taken as standard history), but what caught my eye was the passing mention of a number of ancient historical figures in odd places who had red and blonde hair, and amongst them was the mention of **Emperor Rameses II of Egypt, from 1300BC. Thinking this a particularly conspiratorial idea, I googled Rameses II only to be shockingly surprised. Not only does his Wikipedia page give multiple sources confirming he had red hair, but numerous images also surfaced of the head of his mummy, which possesses a striking tuft of orange hair. The Wikipedia page also mentioned that he had an "aquiline nose" and likely came "from a family of redheads". In Ancient Egypt? 3300 years ago!?
I had always assumed that red hair, alongside blonde hair and other fair hair-colours originated in Northern Eurasia, for both Neanderthals and Humans separately. Red hair is commonly associated with Celts, but moreso historical Indo-European speaking peoples such as Ancient Slavs, Scythians, Tocharians and the like, along with other groups like Chechens and other peoples of the Caucasus, etc. are known for having a large number of red-haired people amongst their populations. Almost all of these people modern and historical are found in places nearby, or as a result of, Indo-European migrations and also in Europe in g, though I think I read something recently calling this a dated assumption and that these hair colours originated in Central European farmers, I don't know. Whatever the case, this brings me back to the question in the header: If an emperor of Ancient Egypt, in North Africa, had red hair in 3300BC and was indeed from a family of redheads, then where the hell is he from!? Because that doesn't sound very Egyptian at all. Could his family have originated from Europe? Anatolia? Was he the child of a wedding to a foreign princess? Was having Red hair and an aquiline nose common amongst ancient Egyptians in 1300BC? Could, similar to the Mitanni of the Hurrians around the same time period - a recent entry of Indo-Iranian or Other IE-speaking tribes have become Egypt's 19th dynasty? Are other Bronze Age farmers culprits for Rameses' heritage?
I'm very curious if someone on here could enlighten me, and maybe sweep away some dated assumptions or preconceived biases in the process, of why a Bronze Age Ancient Egyptian Emperor had reddish-blonde hair.
2 Answers 2018-08-21
1 Answers 2018-08-21
I often hear the Winged Hussar's lauded as an incredibly effective fighting force. What made the Hussar's so effective compared to other cavalry and what created this reputation?
1 Answers 2018-08-21
In a discussion thread elsewhere, someone mentioned that Stephens died as governor of Georgia. I was curious about that because I knew that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment says that anyone who took an oath to support the Constitution of the U.S. and then participated in a rebellion against the U.S. is banned from holding office. This would apply to Stephens, unless I misunderstand something.
Stephens' Wikipedia article mentions that he was elected to the Senate in 1866 but forbidden to take his seat "because of restrictions on former Confederates." (This is odd because it's before the adoption of the 14th Amendment. What restrictions were in place in 1866?) But then it says he was a member of the House of Representatives from 1873 to 1882 without explanation of how he got around the 14th Amendment.
The 14th Amendment allows former rebels to hold office if Congress votes by a 2/3 majority to allow them to do so. Did this happen with Stephens? Or did Congress fail to enforce the Amendment? When Stephens was first elected to the House, Reconstruction was still ongoing, so either alternative seems worthy of further explanation.
Did other former Confederates hold elected office?
2 Answers 2018-08-21
What were the major factors? What were some more nuanced reasons?
1 Answers 2018-08-21
Reading an article on the Forma Urbis and these two points are mentioned as an aside but never expanded upon. How strict were these guidlines? When were they established and how long did they last as standards?
Edit: apologies for title misspelling, on mobile
1 Answers 2018-08-21
It appears as though York began with Eboracum, a Roman fort, which apparently meant "yew tree place". It then became Saxon Eoforwic which apparently meant wild boar settlement , before turning into Jorvik which apparently had the same meaning. How does a place go from being called "yew tree place" to become "wild boar settlement"?
1 Answers 2018-08-21
The Soviets were afraid that Able Archer was a cover for actual nuclear attack, and they raised their readiness in anticipation. However, if I've understood it correctly, they did it completely secretly and the West realized it only afterwards. So why the Soviets didn't go public or at least in someway communicate it to the NATO? Something like "We know what you are going to do, we are ready, its not going to work, back down", intending that if their "cover" is blown, NATO would not dare to attack. Or did they try something like this?
Also, during this time, the Soviets were also afraid of Pershing IIs being used in a decapitation strike. However, according to this very nice website, its range was only 1770 km, not enough to reach Moscow unless you drive it all the way to Denmark from the bases in southern Germany. Was this just the Soviets being unaware of the real range? What were actual targets for the missiles in NATO planning? And was the range of the missile a deliberate choice? It's Soviet counterpart SS-20 had over three times the range.
1 Answers 2018-08-21
1 Answers 2018-08-21
In statistical comparison, that's 1.53% of the entire population and only a portion of the population is healthy adults, so how did the empire recover so fast from the devastation of the fall of the Yuan Dynasty and build such a large army?
Also, during the same period, the entirety of the Holy Roman Empire only have around 30k troops with around 10 million population (0.3%)...
1 Answers 2018-08-21
