I keep finding conflicting sources but the one that seems most legitimate is that the Ancient Egyptians were tan/caramel colored and saw themselves as lighter compared to a similar ancient culture known as Nubia who were definitely black as depicted by their hieroglyphics. I think there were black rulers of Egypt but for the most part they looked like most people living in Egypt today. Can someone confirm whether or not I'm correct and maybe go into further detail?

Today we know of the collapse of the bronze age though as I understand it we still don't know what caused it. From looking at Wikipedia I saw that people had public memory of sorts of the collapse and what once was, but this was in the same vein as Atlantis. So I understand that we can find evidence in the ground like cities or their remains and, that there are the pyramids. But when did people know for sure that the bronze age and its collapse was real? When did we start digging for evidence? Or did we know before we started digging?

I have seen many conflicting views on this topic, some have argued that the KMT were ineffective fighters against Japanese forces and tried to reserve soldiers for a future war against the communists, while the CCP played a major role as an insurgency in bogging them down.

At the same time I have also seen the opposite argument made: that the KMT played a major role in holding back Japanese forces while the CCP played a much more minor role and was the party guilty of trying to reserve their forces for a war with the KMT.

I'm curious what the modern historical consensus is on the actual roles both the KMT and CCP played in the war

In Mexico he is a hero, but apparently he is the opposite in the US

After being shocked 5 times today while getting out of my car I could imagine this being an odd phenomenon without current knowledge of electricity. That’s right, current knowledge.

I'm thinking perhaps in like Mongolia, Manchuria or Central Asia since the wall is often less defined there.

Im writing a short story that takes place in that setting and time period, and would like some further help on it. I looked online but the results are kind of bare so I wanted to ask here. I would like to know how Colombians dressed in those times, how women were seen, and any other important information that is necessary.

If you have an article to share, feel free to link it in the comments.

I was reading a bit on necromancy and considering how magic was understood as acts of summoning. Rather than the practitioner directly using powers, they were relying on demons to use their powers to do the practitioner's bidding. This raised a lot of questions for me, especially considering alleged books of magic are usually suspected to have been written by priests.

Did the Church believe during this time that God could be petitioned to intervene in human affairs, or that the saints or angels could mediate or provide protection? If so, how did the Church distinguish petitionins for demonic magic from petitions for miracles, or would they not have even been asking this question? Were such distinctions primarily politically motivated? Were there any concerns that so much power being ascribed to the devil/evil would cause a sort of lapse into ditheism?

Hope the through-line with these questions makes as much sense to others as me.

I'm reading Young Stalin and in chapter 12 Montefiore talks about when Stalin was sent to exile in Novoya Uda.

"He cut his Jewish fellow exiles but embraced the local hobby: pubcrawls with the criminals" to the point that the other 'middle-class snobbish' revolutionary exiles, organized a 'comrade's court' to put Stalin on trial for drinking with criminals.

But how the hell do you even, as an exile from Georgia, find these criminals, and then socialize successfully with them to go on pubcrawls? Right now I can see two pathways, 1. through his accommodation (he shared the same room as a peasant family, who could be in a social-network with criminals), 2. through taverns (which still, how? Did Stalin just walk up to a circle of locals and introduce himself and coincidentally they were criminals?).

While this may not be the subreddit for this question, I wasn’t sure where else to ask. I’m currently working on a project for a humanities course and I am focusing on Saint George Slaying the Dragon, and what was immediately apparent is that either Saint George was massive, or that the dragon was incredibly small. Barely the size of a horse. Is there any known reason or interesting information behind this?

I take sides when I learn about history and I was totally on board with the romans when learning about the first two punic wars. As far as I know, Rome wanted to protect itself from Carthage and the mamertines. Plus there's some record of the romans being moral and lawful(although I can't find it anywhere online, I just heard it on a podcast), supposedly they had to protect Regium, but the soliders they sent took the mamertine approach and just killed the men and took their posessions, wife and family included. The romans sent their troops, captured the original soldiers that took over the city, and executed them.

That seems to me like a conscious moral decision. That the romans didn't believe in abusing people just because they could.

​

Then the raw deal they gave to Carthage is bad, but it could easily be a misunderstanding or a single bad actor. Later on, throughout the wars, Rome was really trying to survive. And at least they were brave when after they battle of cannae, they did not surrender. I was rooting for them learning about all the punic wars up until the end.

​

But god, the siege of Carthage. It was despicable, if I understood it correctly. Carthage paid the romans for 50 years and they prospered, not trying to rule the world or anything, they focused on making money. The romans found out about this and they feel both scared of another war and a filthy desire to steal from them since they could.

They asked them to provide 300 noble kids as hostages, Carthage agrees, they ask then for all their weapons, amazingly Carthage agrees. And then they basically demand war, demanding them to destroy their own city. Absolutely horrific. Carthage obviously refused at last and went to war for 3 years.

And the romans just massacred them, some became slaves some commited suicide by throwing themselves and their children to fire. It seems even Scipio cried after seeing that nightmarish image.

​

​

So this is my question, did the people of rome hate this? Were they lied to and they believed there was a just reason to go to war?

If they were afraid of their civilization, why didn't they try to unite them and make them romans? They would've agreed I guess.

And when Julius Caesar rebuilt the city, was that a message? Did he oppose what the romans did to the cartheginians? Did other romans publicly crticize what their predecessors did?

We're learning about Imperialism & eugenics in my history class & my history teacher mentioned that Hitler supposedly visited Virginia while he was in the army & visited a eugenics facility & that the eugenics movement there partially inspired him & his crimes. Is this true or just another false "historical" anecdote?

Hello, I'm a programmer and I always kind of ignored history at school and recently I started getting interested in this stuff. My knowledge about history is basically all mess and I wonder if there is a documentary, a book or something else that would just sum up the history for a complete ignorant so I will have an idea more or less what did happen and when. And from there I could dive deeper into details.

Thank you.

There is a narrative around colonialism that lots of artifacts would have been lost before likes or Dutch, British or French explorers saved them. For example a particular Egyptian bust in the British museum is said to have been used as part of the walls to a well before it was excavated.

But how true is this? Was culture preserved by the likes of the Greeks and Egyptians or in parts of India, Africa and South America before westerners arrived? Or has this developed post-colonialism in response to exploitation?

Note: I understand this is going to be a sensitive topic, but I’m asking this question as I’m hoping to clarify some things I (and possibly others) may have been taught wrongly growing up.

As we know, many native Americans in South and North America died to diseases when the European settlers arrived there. However I was wondering if it also happened the other way around, meaning if the European colonists carried diseases from native Americans back to Europe, to whom people died. Thanks in advance.

I understand that large armies would obviously have people ranked below the leader, but i was watching a YT video on Napoleon and was baffled at how he was able to control such a large army. In one war/battle Napoleon was leading his army through Russia with 600K soldiers, how on earth would he even be able to communicate his plans effectively to all of his soldiers? Would it just become a long game of telephone where soldiers would communicate the plan to other soldiers? I also understand that Napoleon liked to utilize smaller armies for better maneuverability, but still, we re talking about thousands of soldiers where the only way to communicate is through written letters and word of mouth. On top of the limited communication, I would also imagine that it would be a lot harder to communicate what your plan is in the midst of battle where a leader needs to quickly react to what the enemies are doing.

I had several arguments with my history teacher in front of the class for misrepresenting American history. I live in a very conservative rural Montanan town, and I remember him saying history would be on Trump's side if he built the wall on the Mexican border and kicked out all of the immigrants in the U.S.

In those cases, I know that it was the teacher's bias that affected the opinions of a whole generation of kids in our town. I wonder though if there are glaring biases in the way that history is taught.

Like... who gets to decide how history is told? The last few years show that there are several sides to every story.