It is often said that Ancient Egypt lasted for three millennia. It implies that their institutions were stable and had enormous staying power, but history is rarely so static.

When I think of countries that exist today, such as those in Europe, they were radically different culturally only 1000 years ago and mostly did not exist 2000 years ago.

Considering the shifts that took place over the last 2000 years, surely Egypt must have undergone more and greater changes over a period of 3000 years. So to what extent is it accurate to say that the Egypt of the Old Kingdom is "the same" Egypt as the Egypt of the Ptolemaic Dynasty?

For example, were the pharaohs always viewed as gods? Did the pharaohs always marry their siblings? Did they always mummify their dead? These things are often stated as properties of Ancient Egypt, but surely their culture, religion, and social structures would have undergone changes over time?

This is the main question: was the Lend & Lease policy the main factor for the Soviet Victory in the eastern Front during world war 2? I’ve read and heard here and there that the US Lend & Lease policy greatly helped the USSR in its fight against the Wehrmacht. But when did it started? After the Germans were stopped at Moscow and Stalingrad during 1941 - 42? Or when the counterattacks had already started in 1943? Or later? Or earlier? How much did it help? If it started before the battles of Stalingrad and Moscow can I assume this is the main factor for the Soviet victory? Etc, you get the point. Thank you in advance.

I was wondering how a plague or an outbreak of a contagious disease affected a city.

By this I mean for example:

• Did many people stay in cities or was there a huge flight?
• What steps were undertaken to minimize casualties?
• Did the government or ruling class stay in the city? Was there some semblance of a function government during the crisis?
• Did the Church or another religious organization offer aid?
• How was trade and commerce affected?
• Are there any accounts of how "regular", poor, people coped with the plague?
• What did they do with the dead?

In general really anything you could tell me about how cities fared during a plague or interesting historical accounts you came across would be very appreciated!

I’ve heard the French and British considered supporting the south early on in the American Civil war and was wondering if any nations were staunchly pro union?

I've been playing a lot of AC: Origins recently and I see most of the pyramids are capped with gold, I've also seen this referenced in other movies and media (I.e. The Mummy)

I was wondering if this is true, and how do we know? Saying as even the oldest photos don't show any gold on top

On numerous not really reliable sources, I have kept finding this conspiracy that the Rothschild family managed to trick the UK by telling them they lost the war, causing them to sell English stock. After which Rothschild bought it all dirt cheap and England still pays them. for their debt. I doubt it is true but maybe a historian can put to rest.

More specifically, could you describe key interactions between Church and State involving the Sack of Constantinople along with the events leading up to it and the effects of it. This is a top option for my formal research paper and I would greatly appreciate it if you supplied me with credible sources backing up your responses. Thanks!

I'm planning to write a fantasy manuscript and i want to base my world building on the viking era in Scandinavia. I know how to find books on the viking generally but i think books about specific subjects within the history of viking Scandinavia would help me as well. For example, a book on the battles between the vikings and the franks and Anglo-Saxons, and the battle tactics used, would be great.

I also don't know much about the more mundane aspects of Scandinavian society at that time, such as how did they normally live on a daily basis. What diets did they have, what clothing did they wear, what did they use for toilets, what sports and leisure activities would they engage in, and how did this all differ across the social classes?

The kind of books i'm looking for would have information on: . The longships and naval technology

. Settlements

. Weapons and armour

. the mythology

. The shield wall and battle tactics

. How most Scandinavians lived during the viking era.

. Viking governments and politics. A book on this subject would really help since i don't know very much about the dynasties in Scandinavia. How did these kingdoms interact? What was the political structure?

. Viking Scandinavia wasn't homogeneous. How did the societies in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark differ from each other?

. The sagas

I didn't get any answers the first time around so I'll ask again!

The "Titanic: Honor and Glory" project maintains a view that the ship, after her fatal collision with the iceberg and a halt that lasted a couple of minutes, did indeed resume sailing at half speed for nearly ten minutes before her final stop, ordered by Captain Smith himself. I couldn't find any sources for this claim anywhere on their website and the debate on Encyclopedia Titannica (a message board/wiki for Titanic enthusiasts) is quite dated and didn't come to a conclusion.

Is there any evidence that this did indeed happen and if so, are there any speculations as for why? I'm a Titanic enthusiast myself but didn't come across this claim until a couple of years ago. If the ship did indeed resume sailing, I'm baffled that it isn't a publicly known fact as it would (at least in my opinion) demonstrate extremely bad judgment on Captain Smith's behalf that should have attracted some interest from the press at the time. I would imagine that moving the ship while she was so badly damaged must have made the situation even worse.

Thanks for any insights!

So New Zealand and Australia (from now on I'll just use ANZ if describing both) we're both clearly western Anglosphere nations during the Cold War who I would expect(although correct me if I'm wrong) would declare war against the Warsaw Pact during a Hot War scenario. Yet they were physically very distant from the main expected conflict zone of Central and Western Europe and were obviously not part of NATO.

As a result, was there any expectation by NATO for ANZ to become involved in defence against a theoretical Soviet assault? Did the Soviet Union have any plans or ideas for dealing with ANZ such as perhaps Submarine deployments to the South Pacific?

Did ANZ themselves have any plans or such in what to do in such a situation? Was the reformation of ANZAC on the cards or expected of either ANZ government? Did ANZ have any expectation themselves to have to deploy to Europe in significant numbers?

Finally, did the progression of the Cold War significantly change the expectations of ANZ and whatever role they might play?

I understand that there are lots of sub-questions and I dont expect them to all be answered. They are there to help give context to the title question.

I’ve tried searching various terms and can’t find any information other than some variation of “Middle Eastern troops often carried shields made entirely of metal”. Any information that could shed some light on this subject would be greatly appreciated.

So I've just picked a topic on what to do my dissertation and have six months to do it. I'm a procrastinator and simultaneously a worrier, so I want to do this as methodically and cleanly as possible. Thanks :)

As someone with a degree in history who took classes from leaders of the field at a "public ivy," I have a hard time understanding the outcry over the claim that the civil war was brought about as a lack of compromise. As I understand it, both North and South recognized that slavery would not be able to continue indefinitely under a United States of America, but the most probable route of emancipation was gradual emancipation over a course of decades. Southerners in an attempt to preserve their way of life rejected this compromise and took the gamble of starting a war of secession which ultimately failed, bringing about the emancipation of slaves much earlier than would have otherwise been the case. How does this not represent a failure to compromise?

[deleted]

Suppose I were a (middle-class) resident of New York City (or any big city that is relevant to your research), circa 1840-1860. If I went into a restaurant, what would my experience be like? Would I have a server/waiter? Butler? What would I be likely to drink, and eat? For that matter, how would the food be prepared (e.g. to what sanitary standards)? What about accommodations - how would my party and I be seated? Bathrooms?

The list of questions I could ask off of this go on. Please answer as much as you can. As a fan of history and former table server, I'm quite curious about my old profession's history.

EDIT: /u/VivaLaVodkaa provided some excellent information about 19th century dining in the US, below. If you're just showing up I recommend giving it a read!

Stumbled upon an askreddit thread asking for unbelievable true events in history. I was about to comment something when I realized it only happened a bit over a decade ago.

At what point does the "past" become part of "history"? Is there a specific time frame?

I am given to understand that, despite what I learned in high school, pre-Norman Anglo-Saxon England was a highly centralized state, more effectively administered than counterparts on the Continent. Which makes me wonder whether there was a common elite culture that included Anglo-Saxon England, or if it was separate and seen as different (or even "backwards").

I am doing a master's paper comparing the coverage of (at least) two major US newspapers (or perhaps television, although that might be problematic) of the Spanish transition to democracy during the 1970s. Specifically, the professor I'm working with suggested taking one newspaper with a conservative viewpoint, and one with a more progressive viewpoint, and contrasting and comparing the two. This isn't a thesis, but a short paper, so I don't need to get too into how to tell exactly what "conservative" and "progressive" mean in this context, I don't believe, although I'd welcome suggestions as to how to choose my sources.

I am in Europe now, and a student, so I'd be looking for sources that would have good online archives of that period, would offer good coverage, and be free or very low cost.

If you have any recommendations, I would welcome them. Thanks!