So the English translation I have of Herodotus gives this description of the appearance of the Persians:

"The Persians with this equipment:—about their heads they had soft felt caps called tiaras, and about their body tunics of various colours with sleeves, presenting the appearance of iron scales like those of a fish."

The common interpretation is that Herodotus is describing the Persians wearing armor. However, the sentence reads to me like here is merely saying the tunics have the appearance of iron scales due to their colors and pattern.

How would the sentence have been presented in the original Greek? What is the correct view of the passage?

I have never met a girl who is legitimately interested in history, especially military history, in my life. I've met plenty who are somewhat knowledgeable about the subject, but they don't have any hobbies related to it. I've had a history teacher who is a woman, but she told me that she enjoys working with kids more than the actual subject. Am I just blind? I'm not looking for dating advise nor am I trying to confirm any prejudice, I'm just legitimately curious if any of you have met any women who are passionate about a field of history, since I swear I've never seen it myself.

Hello,

Throughout this semester, my professor is expecting students to select a topic to research, study, and analyze. The class focuses on Pre-Columbian period through the end of the Civil War (1865). Topics could include subjects such as immigration, sex and relationships, incarceration, popular culture, partisanship in American politics, the increased role of the federal government, terrorism, class divisions, education, etc.) I would like to research a topic that differs from my classmates. Based on a survey it seemed like everybody was choosing to research the Salem Witch trials, Civil War, and Slavery. I know these topics are very broad but I would like one that not many people would know about. Any suggestions?

If a Supreme Court case was attempting to determine the framers' intent concerning a certain passage of the Constitution for example, would a justice or attorney have contacted James Madison or another framer to determine what he/they meant when it was written?

[deleted]

I was watching BTTF 3 and it showed the bartender and he was wearing a armband halfway between his elbow and shoulder. Did they ever really wear them and if so what was the purpose? Was it to hold bills or was it just a fashion thing.

[deleted]

As in, were there actions taken by Europeans during the Columbian Exchange which contributed to or detracted from epidemics?

I don't see this being a recent event. I remember at a young age hearing my moms friends talking about how they'll only watch because xyz was playing.

He seems to have taken the loss very personally shown by him deciding against running in the 1968 Presidential race. I was told that there is a famous picture of him looking disheveled and troubled near the end of his presidency. My question mainly revolves around how he dealt with Vietnam and the role McNamara and Westmoreland played in the decisions. Any information regarding these topics would be monumentally helpful.

I'm mainly asking why, when we talk about dictators committing genocide; nobody really mentions Pol Pot and the killing fields?

The horse was brought over by conquistadores but I've only read of tribes west of the Mississippi making use of them. Did cultures east of the Mississippi make any use of horses? Certainly over 200 years, the Eastern tribes eventually had access to horses the French, Dutch, Swedes, & English brought over that would eventually become lost & stolen as they were from the Spanish, no?

I'm reading Churchill's biography of WWII, and during his discussion of one of the early naval battles after Pearl Harbor (I can't remember which one, but I think the observation comes from "The Grand Alliance"), he comments that the Japanese language was ill-suited for naval command -- in other words, that it was somehow more difficult to communicate because of the language. Was Churchill just stereotyping, or is there any other evidence of this?

I know that it is possible to hold a vote like this in British Parliament, but I was curious if there has ever been one in US Congress. And if not, is it legal? Is there a precedent for it?

What's the record of Portugal, or independent Brazil, with regard to treaties with American Indian tribal authorities?

What about Spain, and the subsequent independent Spanish-speaking states of the Americas?

What about Canada and the British Caribbean islands like Jamaica?

More specifically, were there any progress (or, regression), on the issue of gay rights in the Confederacy during the Civil War, or, did the war make social issues take a backseat during that time?

Did the Deep South have religious sentiments run as high then? What influence, if any, did that have on gay rights to them, if any?

Thanks for any insight.