I know very little about it, I'm Irish by the way and I was think of doing a project on it for my special topic, either that or something to do with Asian history or the tech bubble

I know that the romans knew of Ireland and had a trade relation, but I could really find much on anything else.

Karl was extremely critical of seemingly every other socialist thinker of his time, save for his friend Friedrich Engels. He would call Karl Kautsky, who deeply admired and arguably idolized Marx, a "small-minded mediocrity" in a letter to his wife. He wrote many polemics on many of the philosophers and socialists during his time. Interestingly enough, Engels would enjoy Kautsky and his company to have drinks, and Engels would praise philosophers like Max Stirner saying "It is equally from egoism (Stirner's philosophy) that we are communists." while Marx devoted a chapter of his book The German Ideology to denouncing Stirner and slandered him naming him "Saint Max". Marx was also regarded by many as ill-tempered, as expressed by Kautsky before meeting him. My question is, aside from Engels, was there anyone alive during Marx's time who he admired or respected for their philosophy or politics?

I realize that Byzantine is a wholly inaccurate term, but I’m using it in this post for simplicity.

So my question is, what was the army of the Eastern Romans (both standing - if there was such a thing - and levied - if levies still were widely used)? I’m curious about troop composition, equipment, and even doctrine and way of fighting. Were they like their Western European counterparts at this time and beginning to become professionalized, or were they still consisted of spear and shield wielding levies (an example question)?

Given that he supposedly wrote his books to make the Jews look better to the Romans' eyes or to redeem himself to the Jewish community for his 'treason'...

I understand some of the context to the event. The islands had been hotly contested for centuries. The ship was outside of the exclusion zone. I understand why it could be considered somewhat of a dick move, but I don't understand people calling it a warcrime. Argentina had invaded what was largely considered British territory and were occupying it. This is the same as basically invading Britain itself, isn't it? It seems to me when you're at war, especially one you've started for no real reason other than ego, you shouldn't expect your enemy to be nice to you. The ship had shown aggressive posturing recently also. It just seems like calling this a warcrime is a stretch when the other country started and were maintainig the hostilities. I guess Britain was expected to be the more "mature" country and try to find a way to peace even though they were on the defensive? Maybe someone could put it in better context for me?

My grandma told me today it was common to see triangular shaped arrays of light hovering in the night sky above north western german citys while allied air strikes in WW2. As childrens they called them "christmas trees" and see them occasionally on their way to the bunkers. Was it part of the german air defence like some captive balloons or was it some target illumination of the Allies? What was the purpose oft that system?

I understand that narrator of the poem wrote from a Christian perspective, but why does he describe the characters as being ignorant of God while they frequently talk about him?

Lines 179-182

the Maker was unkown to them

the Judge of all actions, the Almighty was unheard of,

they knew not how to praise the Prince of Heaven,

the Wielder of Glory

Lines 89-91

the clear song of the poet, perfect in his telling

of the remote first making of man's race.

He told how, long ago, the Lord formed Earth

Lines 938-939 (Hrothgar speaking)

The man has,

by the Lord's power, performed the thing

For reference, the quotes are from the Michael Alexander translation.

Cheers (Sorry if the formatting is bad I'm on my phone)

[deleted]

Ive read Snuff was extremely popular during the Napoleonic era, but today it is relatively unheard of. Why did snuff fall out of fashion

I've recently finished Marcus Aurelius' Meditations, Seneca's On The Shortness Of Life, and Epictetus' Enchiridion. One thing that has struck me is their distinction between the use of the word God and the word gods. While I think I understand the meaning of these words contextually, I'm interested in, for example, what is the original word that God is translated from in each of these texts. Being somewhat familiar with Ancient Greek and Roman mythology and religious practices, I did not know the "theology" of it was understood in quite this way. Obviously these traditions are not reformed religions the way we think of it in the modern sense so not everyone would understand the gods in the same way but I was still surprised by it. Does the word God represent an actual mythological figure such as Uranus or whatever the Roman equivalent was when Seneca speaks of something like men and gods being the sons of God? Or was this more conceptual than literal. Is this way of thinking limited to the stoics and platonists or is this how the religious leaders of the time understood their world? Thanks.

In "1776", the Continental Congress bangs on their desks as if to say "Hear, hear!" or to applaud. They do the same in the cabinet meetings in "Lincoln." I've never seen this happen in a modern political debate or as far as I can remember, any other context. When did this die out? Are there notes at some period of people saying it was uncouth or something?

As an undergraduate student, I’ve taken both history and economic courses and noticed that each discipline often draw different conclusions about historical events. For instance, a historian might claim that the actions of the labor movement resulted in shorter working days and higher wages while an economist might claim that those improvements were inevitable due to rising productivity? Is either field more right than the other in their methodology of approaching economic history?

I have heard from a couple of people that the Swedish Empire taught its troops to reload as they marched, and that this was used to good effect in the early 18th century. Apparently, it was used while closing with the enemy, with the last shots fired at close range.

Can anyone confirm if this is accurate, and expand upon the tactic?

All the other princely states got integrated into either India or Pakistan. Why was Kashmir left independent?