Not trying to be snotty. I've just seen a lot of comments (not necessarily here) that popular historians are doing a disservice and so forth. If that's the case why aren't more actual historians trying to write in a manner that's engaging to a general audience? Or are they trying and just not getting noticed?

What were the expected roles taken by Spartan citizens? From what I understand Spartiates didn't work, instead they were professional soldiers and free men. What else was expected of them. Also, why were these things expected of them? Has it anything to do with the constitution/great rhetra and who/what are the best sources to look at in regard to this?

Thanks vey much, I hope someone can help to shed some light on these things!

Looking into it, seems like a few Allied leaders were being treated for mental health, Churchill being the most famous. But I never hear about that on the Axis side. Did any German/Japanese/Italian politicians or generals suffer from mental illness?

When I think about the world of art, architecture, music, etc. today, it seems like there are an infinite amount of genres and subgenres and schools of thought flourishing across the world. But looking back at, say, the 1910's, there's a simpler image of what art "looked like". Looking back at the Victorian era, it's even simpler, and when I go back to renaissance or medieval history, or earlier still, I "feel" some kind of sense of what the "true" or "typical" art of the time was. But I cannot for the life of me point to a style of art or music or architecture or fashion and say that this is the defining style of our time. Is this difference real? Has there been an expansion of the kind of art or culture that has been allowed to exist, over time? Or is it, as i suspect, a sum of my own bias?

Was christianity that big during the Qing dynasty?

The scope of this crisis is just unfathomable in my head, and it's impossible for me to understand how I haven't heard about it before.

Edit: I love this subreddit!

Did they not have a term limit before? Is there a law that allows this?

As stated I just finished watching The Birdcage (1996). As someone who is watching it 20 years after it was first released, it struck me as a film with a mixture of elements of homosexual celebration, but also homosexual exploitation and homophobia.

Regarding exploitation and homophobia, at times the film taps into stereotyping to either please the audience (ie, slapstick laughs) or to portray a very mainstream view of what homosexuality represented at the time.*

Balancing out the negatives though, are many moments of homosexual celebration about individuals and gay culture as a larger construct.

So really my question is, how was this movie viewed at the time? Was it seen as mixing positive and negative views on homosexuality? Were people critical of this or were they happy there was a mainstream film discussing such things? In particular I am interested in the responses by people or groups who would have been identified as pro-LGBTI or Liberal at the time.

• I was 5 when the movie was released, so my assumption is affected by this .

Hello, I have been contemplating where to go with my career field once I finish school and would like some advice on what to do.

I'm currently finishing my Bachelors in History and I'm not entirely sure where to go from there in the job market. I am currently getting my certification to teach because I would love to teach history, however, I believe I want to do much more than become a History Teacher. I do want to get my Masters and try teaching at the college level but I'm still not 100% if that's what I want to do for the rest of my life. I know, it's pretty terrible.

Are there any other jobs worth looking up for Historians? Do you have a job that you got with your History Degree that isn't so "conventional" for Historians?

Thank you!

A friend of mine was telling me about this period known as the "Christian Black Period" in which Christianity started going downhill after the fall of the Western Roman Empire and then nearly went extinct until one king in the Rhineland brought it back in around AD 750 and from there Christianity rocketed back up. I'm not sure if this is true or not, considering the Eastern Roman Empire was the center of Orthodox Christianity for centuries after the fall of the west, and there has always been a pope in the history of the church. Perhaps he is saying that Christianity nearly died out in Northern Europe? Considering the fact that the Rhineland was under constant raids from non-Christian Slavs and Vikings, it would make sense that Christianity would go on the decline there, since they did stuff like looting churches, etc. Or was what he was saying complete BS?

As far as I understand, the viking peoples were marked by their coastal raiding of other regions across Europe. While this era is commonly said to have ended in or around 1066, I was reading a book on Polish history that mentioned Denmark and the "Scandinavian kingdoms" advancing into eastern Europe (Lithuania and Latvia are used as examples) in the mid to late thirteenth century, assumedly to take territory.

I know I'm not giving many details to go on, but what would be the difference between these incursions and those carried out by the vikings? To specify a bit further, why are these groups not considered to be vikings although their purpose appears to be similar?