"It appears therefore that the several Hellenic communities, comprising not only those who first acquired the name, city by city, as they came to understand each other, but also those who assumed it afterwards as the name of the whole people, were before the Trojan war prevented by their want of strength and the absence of mutual intercourse from displaying any collective action.”

I'm not sure what this means.

I was watching a documentary on the battle of the hochin reservoir which was where the Chinese intervened and the Americans were forced into a retreat after killing tens of thousands of Chinese human waves.

During the documentary they kept saying how arrogant MacArthur was to be pushing so hard into North Korea and how he ignored intelligence saying the Chinese were planning an attack.

If he had heeded the warning and began to push more steadily with overwhelming numbers, could the Korean Peninsula been united under a democracy today?

I have a few more specific questions as well:

1)What type of education would I have? Would i be expected to know how to cook and clean like a peasant woman would, or would I have servants to do that for me?

2)What would I do in my spare time?

3)My father has decided I should marry. How much choice do I have over the matter, both in regards to my choice of spouse and whether or not i will marry at all? What would happen to me if I refused to comply with my father's wishes?

4. What type of medical care would I have in regards to feminine issues, ie menstruation, childbirth ect..,

5)Say I do marry. Who would be a likely candidate for my bridegroom?

6)If my future husband dies, what will happen to me? I assume there is some difference in what happens regarding whether or not I have had children

Thank you!

I am trying to write a high school American history curriculum, and could use some input. I want to divide American history into 5 distinct eras. I realize this a bit arbitrary and sloppy, but I have a pedagogical reasons that makes it necessary.

If I could get some input I would appreciate it.

1. Pre-Contact & Colonial America (Land Bridge through End of American Revolution)

2. Young Republic (Articles of Confederation through Reconstruction)

3. Industrial America (Gilded Age through WWII)

4. Post World Wars America or Cold War Era(1945 through Fall of Soviets Union)

5. Modern America (1991 through Today)

My rationale for the divisions is that everything in the an era seems to lead to the concluding event. After the concluding event America is different.

So you can pin my knowledge level. I have a BA in US history focusing on colonial America. My knowledge of anything post WW2 is inadequate right now.

Any help would be appreciated, and I hope this is the appropriate place for this post.

I used to think that Greek victories despite being outnumbered (at Marathon and Plataea) and moral victories (Thermopylae) were due to the close order hoplite formation. Rugged, disciplined men clad in bronze with overlapping shields, each fighting for the freedom of his Polis and the man next to him would tear lightly armored Persian skirmishers with wicker shields and short spears.

Obivously that's an exaggeration- I knew that Greek hoplites didn't all have Bronze armor, and Persians weren't all lightly armored skirmishers- but that what I thought in broad strokes.

Lately, I've been exposed to some of Hans Van Wees' works, and some of /u/Iphikrates 's posts and learned the 'heretical' model of hoplite warfare. That hoplites were essentially untrained militia and rarely, if ever drilled together. They fought in looser order than we used to think, and the armor was not necessarily any better than what the Persians had. Why then did they win so many battles against the Persians while outnumbered?

I understand that the Persians were at the end of their logistical rope, but that should explain why a campaign stutters out after a sack or two, not why they'd get trounced in battles where they outnumbered the enemy?

Did the Persians not actually have any numerical advantage? Did the Greeks just get lucky?

Was there ever vegans in history? Was there ever people in history who wrote in their diary or whatever six hundred years ago or something and said 'I think it's cruel to eat meat'. If not, what changed in modern times? Not sure if this is better to ask a sociologist/anthropologist or something. Basically what I am asking is, is there a 'history of veganism'. Thanks, I hope this is clear enough.

As I understand it, about half of the original 13 states had state churches, but I know very little about how this worked in practice, so have a few questions about it:

• What did this mean in practical terms, especially as regards the Churchs' involvement in state politics, as well as freedom of worship for members of different denominations?
• Although this was in the pre-Incorporation period as regards the Bill of Rights, how much opposition was there to state-level establishment of religion, and were there supporters of an Incorporationist understanding of the First Amendment at the time?
• Why did they all die out? My impression is that they were mostly gone by the mid-19th century, so it was well before the 14th Amendment, let alone Everson in 1947.

The billionaires created by the fall of the Soviet Union and privatization of public industries are notorious. Were there people that wealthy in the Soviet Union? If so, how did they get their wealth and how did people view them in light of the fact that they were living in a communist country?

I understand that Octavian invaded it in his war with Antony, but prior to that it was already some sort of client state, hence Antony staying there, when exactly did this happen?

What were the means of transportation then? Did people travel a lot? Did people emigrate? Did tourism exist back then?

Obviously McCarthy and HUAC was over the top. But was there actually a significant amount of communists and other radicals working in Hollywood prior to the blacklist? I know of a few, like Dalton Trumbo. But were there any more, and did their ideas ever get into the films being put out?

My own feeling is that while there were communists here and there, they did not have a significant influence on studio output; most of the films they made were just broadly apolitical and not at all leftist, like most Hollywood films of the time. Aside from some pro-USSR/Stalin films made during WWII, there was not much communist content in Hollywood. Is that accurate?

I researched a lot; some sites say it's 1850, some 1860 and others 1870.

Where they just not popular, did they get phased out, were they just never built anywhere else?

If they weren't in other cities, why did they catch on in San Francisco but virtually nowhere else?

If they were in other cities why are they so iconic for San Francisco when they were basically just city buses?

To me, the reductionist view that native populations (already a generalization) just didn't conceptualize property seems to be rather stereotypical and a way to diminish native populations. Is this accurate?

How well accepted was the round earth view in China?

I know that Hamilton wasn't exactly popular so why did his duel with Burr cause a lot of grief for Burr?

I realise that using the term nationalism to describe basically anything before the 17-1800s is rather iffy. I mean how much of a Roman "identitity" or seperatist/restorationist sentiment was there in Greece after the Byzantines fell?

I was reading Adrian Goldsworthy's 'The Complete Roman Army' and came across a sentence where he says that in the consular army, there were usually 2 Roman legions and 2 Ala from Socii allies, he says that the Ala usually had the same number of infantrymen, but around 3x as many cavalrymen. This leads me to a few questions.

1. Why this difference in composition? Was it to provide more discipline for the regular men since they weren't fighting for their own tribe/city-state?

2. Why were the Socii willing to field disproportionately larger amounts of their wealthier citizens?

3. Was this composition reflective of a difference in the distribution of wealth in Roman society and that of the Socii, i.e. were there more wealthy people amongst the Socii who could afford their horses, etc.?

4. Was there a system of dividing up plunder, spoils of war, etc? If so, would it be shared among the Socii as well? What sort of proportions?

5. From what I recall reading elsewhere, the Socii system persisted until the end of the social wars, whereupon Socii were awarded Roman Citizenship. Is this correct? After that point were they considered 'Romans' in all manners? Was there a period of animosity by 'true' Romans against these states/people from these states? Did 'true' Romans retain any rights not granted to former Socii?

Sorry to ask so many questions at once, I hope I'm not breaking any rules.