In the ancient world, there seem to be numerous examples of writers and artists acknowledging that groups of humans have shared physical and cultural characteristics and labeling them with specific group names, in some cases stereotyping them negatively. How does this differ from what we now call racism?

Especially considering we haven’t been able to study the western saharan archeologically since 1991 despite technological developments and more recently the eastern saharan due to wars.

Never really read much about history, except recently I've been watching copious amounts of toldinstone and history matters. I'm really interested in ancient China but I have no idea where to start reading and what resources are accurate. Any suggestions would be very appreciated :)

Why didn't their horses fall when charging an enemy? I mean when they stomp into enemy lines I don't get why the horses wouldn't just fall?

And how could Cataphractarii avoid dropping their lances when they hit a heavy enemy?

A relatively unrelated question: why did Rome increasingly rely on cavalry as they stopped expanding, instead focussing on defense?

I don't know much about ww2. I've read a few books about it but the nitty-gritty of the war doesn't interest me. However, ever since I read my first book on the holocaust I wanted to read more about the transition.

(What follows are my own uneducated words):

• Why the Jews and why in Germany.
• I heard a few things about how entire Europe was against Jews even though not as brutal as the nazis.
• What did normal Germans think? Why didn't they go totally against the holocaust?
• I've seen a video where ordinary Germans sort of threw their Jewish neighbors with sticks and so on.
• I think I read that the French police helped the nazis. -I read a book on three kingdoms (families) and they were more or less like "Hitler is a good chap".
• I think I read the Jews that fled Germany still dealt with anti-semitism
  • leading my ignorant self to think anti-semitism was mainstream, why was it mainstream, and what were the events that changed our society (this is not to say there's no antisemitism but I hope you know what I mean)

Then, most importantly, how can a society like that change (what I consider) so quickly into feeling guilty about what they did.

In historical fiction I remember this Jewish woman after the war saying how no matter how far away from Germany she went, she still felt under threat because all Europeans were somewhat ok with what had happened (totally my words but just the vibe)

Today I realized in school history class I learned a lot about what happened, but less so about why it happened.

So I learned about concentration camps and death camps, and that Jews (and a lot of other people) were deported and put into those camps. And that also a lot of them were murdered there.

But it did make me wonder why the Nazis went through all that trouble? Why did they not "just" kill those people immediately to get rid of them, if that was their goal?

I did try searching Google but I am not really getting articles about this particular question as results..

I'm Australian, from Brisbane (Queensland) in particular. Lately, I've realised how little I really know about Indigenous Australian history. In particular our local history and culture (Yuggera/Turrbal country) is of interest to me.

I'm a little bit ashamed of this, as I'm a high school history teacher. Most of what I know, however, is on topics like Ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome; which is what I've always found most compelling.

I want to begin learning more about Indigenous Australian history and I was hoping you brilliant souls could potentially point me in a good direction.

I'd also like to be clear that I don't just want to learn about their history since colonisation, and am more interested in pre-colonial history. A lot of my education on the topic, both in high school and at university, revolved around post-colonisation.

I recently did a case study on the discovery of "Mungo Man/Mungo Lady" and found it utterly fascinating.

Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

I'm reading Pandemic 1918 by Catherine Arnold.

Chapter two is starting to cover the account Dr Loring Miner, based in Haskell County, Kansas as he starts to notice dramatic cases of pneumonia.

As part of his response he analysed blood and urine samples.

In 1918, what could he have been testing for?

Additionally I'm curious about a few other things:

What was the state of germ theory at that point in history? And how well informed were the general public about viruses and epidemics?

Thanks.

Apparently for a while the 1485 manuscript of Le Morte d'Arthur by Thomas Malory was believed to be the earliest copy, but then somehow in 1934 some college library is cataloguing their library and they find an original earlier version of the work that was thought to be first written in 1470.

This kind of thing happens from time to time, some paper document from literally centuries ago just "turns up" in some unexpected location. Doesn't paper deteriorate after that long?

It was my impression that literally any surviving piece of paper from that long ago, no matter how quotidian (say a bill of sale or some minor court record) would be considered an important historical artifact. Are there actually lots of pieces of paper from the 15th century surviving and so it would be easy for an actually important document to get lost in a library among piles of boring worthless tax records or whatever?

I'm a big fan about human hairy in general. Any good books or series I should read? I want to learn not only what happened but why it happened. I read Sapiens, which I learned that was factually incorrect in many aspects, so any book of the sort that is factually correct? What about Will Durant Books? Are they good?

Hello, I am wanting to learn and read about the Vikings. I recently came across a man named Steve Donoghue on youtube. He has a starter kit on books he feels is a good place to start reading about Vikings. Is this list legit or just a waste of time? thank you.

Myths & Legends:

• The Sagas of the Icelanders (Penguin Classics Deluxe edition)
• The Elder Edda, translated by Paul Taylor & W. H. Auden
• The Myths of the Norsemen by Roger Lancelyn Green
• Mytho-History:
• Echoes of Valhalla by Jon Karl Helgason
• Tales of Valhalla by Martyn Whittock & Hannah Whittock
• Beyond the Northlands by Eleanor Rosamund Barraclough

History:

• The Vikings by Howard La Fay (National Geographic)
• The Oxford Illustrated History of the Vikings by Peter Sawyer
• Northmen by John Haywood
• Laughing Shall I Die by Tom Shippey
• The Viking Wars by Max Adams
• The Norsemen in the Viking Age by Eric Christiansen

Popular Culture:

• The great Viking novels of Giles Kristian
• Robert Low's terrific "Oathsworn" series
• The Half-Drowned King by Linnea Hartsuyker

Why would Nixon risk the eventual consequences of watergate when by all accounts the election was heavily in his favor?

I’m looking for a sociological historical answer to this, not idealogical, if possible — which is why i’m asking in this sub.

Of course there are very good protestant universities and colleges in the US, but there are no top schools reputation wise that are protestant in a significant way. This is unlike catholicism, which has schools like Georgetown, Notre Dame, Boston College, places that are among the most highly regarded research universities or liberal arts schools. And i guess the other significant part of my question is that there are many catholic universities which still have strong secular programs as well, they’re reputable and highly regarded for things other than religious studies. So protest seminaries also don’t pertain to my question.

Maybe the answer would be related to money, but some denominations like presbyterian or episcopalian are most middle/upper class, so I’m not sure why that would be the case.

Also, some schools like Princeton are technically affiliated with a protestant domination, but not in any way that matters anymore.

In modern discourse, we often hear critique of the present education system for not changing fundamentaly since it was developped in the industrial revolution. But was private primary education actually different before the industrial revolution? If so, how was it like?