Hello,

I have been reading recently about the conditions of early Colonial Australia for settlers, such as the extreme isolation and sex ratio disparity and the cruelty toward indigenous peoples. One aspect caught my eye, namely that of shepherds who looked after the sheep for squatters on their runs prior to the rise of drovers (at least I think that is the case).
Anywho, I found it quite an interesting topic, especially when reading a very brief description of how many faced extreme loneliness - akin to lighthouse keepers in a sense. However, there was not a lot of detail aside from that brief description, and I have not had much luck in finding resources online pertaining to Colonial era shepherds. My main questions are these: did they work alone, or in pairs? What kind of equipment did they have (as in did they live in bark huts or tents or had weaponry etc)? Could you provide me with some further reading on first or second hand accounts? How long were they away from civilisation? Were they mainly former convicts? And lastly, what would their daily life be like?

I realise it may be a strange topic, but it seems very interesting and I would like to learn more about the lives of shepherds and how their lives reflected the situation of other settlers.

From Wikipedia:

Jordanes records that Decius' son Herennius Etruscus was killed by an arrow early in the battle, and to cheer his men Decius exclaimed, "Let no one mourn; the death of one soldier is not a great loss to the republic." 

This is 251 and "the republic" is long dead. I know that the Senate was still around as a vestigial institution and the idea of Roman institutional inheritance carried on well into the Byzantine period. But what I wonder is would a Roman living in 251, a soldier under Decius' command at Abrittus for instance, still think of their government as upholding republican institutions?

Watching 300 again reminded me of how it seems as every single one of those guys were one-liner savages. Was it just for cool factor or there's history around that?

More interesting, though, what's the closest to a primary source we can get on the matter? It would be simply amazing to see thousands year old pieces of material dedicated to ancient roasts.

My world civ professor in college mentioned that this song was banned due to being pornographic. Is this like when To Kill a Mockingbird is banned where it's only in select areas?

What were the specific arguments for labelling it as pornographic? Was there any backlash to this response?

Whenever I hear about Quakers, it tends to be something involving their contributions to the Underground Railroad, their positive treatment of the Native Americans, or how they were treated so poorly by the Puritans during the colonial times.

Were the Quakers really as forward thinking as they've been made out to be?

Has it ever happened or were the Amish deferred due to religious reasons?

If the theory has enough evidence to be considered true, is it also possible that Darius made up Cambyses’s insanity as way to legitimize his hold on the throne?

I live in Miami, with all you lovely Cubans. Since Cuban cuisine is my favorite, I’m almost always talking to a Cuban at the restaurants.

One thing that doesn’t make sense to me is why San Lazaro (St. Lazarus) is such an important figure in Cuba. I almost always see Cubans wearing gold pendants of Lazaro.

I’ll go in a Cuban small business and they’ll have a giant statue of St. Lazaro in crutches and the two dogs looking at him. Cubans will know what I’m talking about.

As bible critic it doesn’t make sense to me, because Lazaro is only mentioned once in the New Testament in John - Chapter 11, two times if Luke - Chapter 16 is indeed talking about the same Lazarus as the gospel of John. In other words, in the bible, Lazarus is but a footnote.

But how did this, for lack of a better term, footnote of a character become so predominantly important to Cuba and even Miami as a whole?

Did something in Cuban history happened regarding San Lazaro? Be it a politician used him in his speeches or whatnot? Is it a history predating Cuba itself?

The google is pretty useless in this topic so I’m hoping maybe some Cubans can lend me some knowledge? Historians of Reddit as well.

Regnal lists of the Sumerians, Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, Vietnamese, Persians, etc. all have preposterous claims to ages 100+ when you get really far back.

How do historians approach such claims? Are the ages wrong but the people existed? Or are the ages wrong AND the people never existed?

Like, how do scholars view Emperor Jimmu?

Hello!

I'm posting this intro filling in for /u/cleopatra_philopater who unfortunately could not. Without further ado:

We are a panel of regular contributors to /r/askhistorians here to discuss and answer questions about Roman history from the Republic to the Byzantine Empire. We’ll be covering a period spanning from the Iron Age to the Middle Ages. During this vast span of time there were sweeping changes to Roman society as new cultural, religious, political, and technological influences from the cultures it came into contact with. Rome went from a republic to an empire, from multicultural polytheism to Christianity, and from a Latin speaking government to a Greek speaking one. Roman history happens to be one of the most popular topics on this sub so we hope to answer lots of questions about how people lived, prayed, fought, governed and died under the auspices of “Rome”.

And here are your panelists:

/u/Bigfridge224 – Specializes in Roman Religion and Social History with archaeological expertise in Roman magic.

/u/arte_et_labore - Specializing in the military history of the Punic Wars with a focus in the tactics employed during the conflicts

/u/LegalAction – Specializes in the Late Republic and Early Empire with a Particular interest in the Social War

/u/XenophontheAthenian – Specializes in the Late Republic with a particular interest in class conflicts.

/u/Celebreth – Specializes in the Late Republic and Early Imperial period, with a particular interest in Roman Social and Economic History

/u/Tiako - Specializes in the trade, machines, ships and empire of the Early Imperial period.

/u/mythoplokos - Specializing in Roman intellectual history, imperialism and epigraphy with a special interest on the High Empire.

/u/dat_underscore - Specializing in the political and military history of the Late Empire with a particular interest in the factors that influenced the disintegration of the Roman Empire

/u/Iguana_on_a_stick - Specializing in the Fall of the Roman Empire with an interest in the military history of the Mid-Republic to the early Empire.

/u/FlavivsAetivs - Specializing in the 5th Century Western Roman Empire with a particular interest in the Late Roman military.

/u/Mrleopards – Specializing in the transition of the Roman military from the Antique to Medieval periods with a focus on cultural and political effects on the state's strategic outlook. Data engineer by day, amateur historian by night, /u/mrleopards is currently building a data model to measure Roman Military effectiveness across different periods.

Wikipedia says it was described by one historian as "unrestrained violence." And some non combatants were raped/murdered against his orders. Is there someone who knows more about this?

Lawrence Washington's spouse Anne Fairfax was from a prominent West Indian family of multiracial origin. Their ancestry was visible to the extent that father George William Fairfax worried that his children's features would limit their advancement in British high society.

Was this a big deal at the time? I've never heard of other slaveholding families in the English colonies having a mixed-race origin, and from what I understand legitimate interracial relationships were discouraged our outlawed well before the establishment of Jim Crow.

What was the broader social context of Lawrence Washington's marriage? Were wealthy white planters more able to pursue matrimonial relationships with non-white women in the 18th century than they would be in the 19th century?

I’ve read Homage to Catalonia and For Whom the Bell Tolls. What are some great non-fiction books on the Spanish Civil War? I’m also interested in how Franco starts out as a fascist but was able to hang on and survive into the 1970s.

Are there particular historical features of the political system or the division of constituencies that lead to one party dominance or particular historical developments in culture and society which can be argued as the cause?

First they were a sedentary farming nation up in northern Europe. After the Huns attacked them, they were constantly on the move, didn’t keep the contracts they made with the roman empire, but finally conquered it and all land around the Mediterranean sea. They only stopped this, when they were dissolved so much in the population the conquered, without distinction.

Now I wonder why after they left their sedentary life, they kept on an on, could never be pacified.