This is for my historical investigation for my senior high school assignment. Thought this would be a better place to ask rather than "Homeworkhelp" since it is a Ancient history subject. (excuse my cluttered-ness, I don't understand formatting on reddit)

But anyways. I'm having problem finding evidence to show it's significance. My thesis right now is: "Mercury was highly impact on the ancient Chinese arts and lives of royalty". So far I've found cinnabar to be used as pigment, as seen on the terracotta warriors. The red colour of the mineral also is an important symbol for power and luck. Medication, Qin Shi Huang's consumption of mercury.

I want to include something about Qin Shi Huang's flowing rivers of mercury but I'm not sure how that would show mercury's significance. Thank you in advance. Hope this follows the Roundtable policy!

Is there a specific methodology/philosophy that Historians use when analyzing why certain events in history happened the way they did? Due to my own political beliefs I follow Dialectical Materialism which is what we use to say why x event happened the way it did and can be used to explain the fall of feudalism and the rise of capitalism, certain trends within recent history like the rise of fascism and socialism, etc. If historians aren't using this as their "lens" of viewing the world and using it as an explanation of why things happen the way they do then what are they using?

Was Islamic conversion greater in Asia simply due to European Christian groups originally not having independent access to Indian Ocean trading peoples; or were there other factors at play? Perhaps were Arabic cultural and governance systems more in line with the Asian norms; leading to greater adoption over Christian culture?

Also was there a steep rise in Christian converts in Asia when the alternative Spanish and Portuguese routes through the Americas and around the cape of Africa were discovered? Or did the Asian Muslim converts with the rise of Christian missionaries hold onto their adopted religion in the 16th century?

Thanks :)

I know many people hate them(2), but I’ve never met a footnote I didn’t like(3). There is nothing more fun than reading a book and carefully checking the author’s notes and following their research and writing process(4). So how was this brilliant device created, and how has it developed in both fiction and nonfiction(5)?

(1) I’ll also accept the origin and development of endotes.

(2) Although if anyone hates Edward Gibbon’s footnotes something must be wrong with them.

(3) I even like David Foster Wallace’s footnotes of footnotes.(a)

(4) I’ve heard that some academics stick in fake footnotes just to see if their peers are paying attention, but I’ve never found one.

(5) Bonus question: Did footnotes develop independently of a bibliography page, or are they related?

(a) Please don’t make insinuations upon my mental health, or lack thereof.

What is the earliest evidence of cod consumption in europe? Is there any evidence of cod consumption (outside of Iceland) before the 15th century? Did the romans eat cod?

Was there any speculation as to what it was?

Why was Poland so untouched or a better way hardly touched by the Plague? It was surrounded by it since it reached from Spain to Moscow. With Poland smack right in the middle, I just don't understand why it was spared.

From Han Dynasty to Sui Dynasty, emperors were usually titled "Di" (帝), with a few "Zu" (祖) mixed in. Then from Emperor Taizong of Tang and onwards "Zong" (宗) became the most common title of emperors. Why did it change?

[deleted]

My understanding is that ancient architecture was based on empirically developed heuristics. We tend through survivorship bias to be most familiar with the ones that were successfully completed and survived the centuries. However, were there numerous incidents where an engineer tried to push the boundaries and a temple, cathedral, etc. collapsed in the middle of construction or very early in its planned lifespan (exempting disaster and intentional)?

In antiquity, a lot happened in modern Iraq / Syria. For huge segments of history, there was some kind of empire operating out of modern Iran, and it tended very often to wind up in showdowns against the powers on its western border. There were all kinds of fun wars between the Greeks and the Persians, the Romans and the Parthians, the Byzantines and the Sasanians, and more.

Basically, it seems that there was usually an empire operating out of Iran, and a lot happened on its western border. But what about the eastern border? I've only ever heard of one war being fought in that area, and that was Alexander trying to push east and being turned down by his own men.

Was Alexander the only campaigner to try to march east out of modern Iran? Did the successive empires in this area ever fight major wars on their eastern border? Did different empires allocate the region different priorities? Were efforts made by Indian powers to march west?

My secondary goal in asking this is to try and understand what other commitments the empires in this area may have had aside from their western border, to better understand their actions on that front.

Thanks in advance for any answers.

Would they have refrained from admiring Prometheus (for the whole "bringing fire to man" thing) out of fear of retribution from Zeus?

The Anglo fleet (scyp fyrd) did exist, didn't it? Why couldn't it obstruct a channel crossing and/or attack the Norman transports?

His mythology, especially in his Masks of God series relies on quite a bit of history, so I'm pretty curious how historians tackle Campbell.

As per my understanding, in the 19th century and earlier musket and rifle rounds tended to be between .45 and .7 inches in diameter, and their caliber varied drastically from weapon to weapon. Starting in the 1890s, industrialized nations began to standardize the caliber of their basic rifle rounds. It seems that most eventually arrived at roughly .30 inches in diameter. Is there any specific reason for this caliber to be used as a rifle round over another?

My TA for my first-semester history class said the best questions are how or why questions. Thoughts?

By modern I mean the current third wave feminism, black lives matter like identity politics.

So I got from Wikipedia that the Roman army reached its peak in term of size in approx. 211 AD with a force of 450 000 men. Even considering that not all of that was regular legions, the magnitude of this number just makes me wonder about the underlying logistics.

Did all of these soldiers have the same uniformized equipment? If so, do we have records of how this feat was achieved ? (Or maybe there was differences between legions on that matter?) It seems that the only way to accomplish this is by having some sort of proto mass production capabilities. What kind of company/organization/person would have been in charge of this?

Sorry if something is unclear with my English, I'm more than willing to further explain what I'm trying to find out if necessary.