I'm thinking about doing my PhD on understanding sovereignty within Western Thought, something that is closely tied in with both history and philosophy and, as such, I'm currently working on my thesis proposal. My main assumption is that 'History is to States what Character is to Human Beings.' As such, here is my question:

Do you think there is an 'in-between' between essentialism and social constructivism? If one is to make the case for a continuity in western civilization (a result of historical continuity on the notion of Western Sovereignty), does this inherently assume essentialism, or can you assume an essence of something socially constructed?

I know this is a huge debate in other academic fields (modernism vs post-modernism), but I am really curious as to hear your thoughts.

Thank you!

Melos is supposed to have been neutral during the Peloponnesian War, which makes the razing of their city by Athens in 416 BC all the more horrible. But I've read that some Melians may have at least made private donations to Sparta. What is the evidence for this?

I saw a copy of the memo online and it stated "at least two swastikas seen on planes." Why would the presidents military advisors think that was true and if so what implications would it have?

There's an argument made by a Brexiter in the UK about it.

I imagine there are many places where the temperature never drops below 0 degrees and I would personally have no idea how to build a machine that sucks energy away from one place fast enough for water to freeze.

We're there places that had never seen snow or ice before people started moving it around commercially and building freezers and such?

If so is there any record of a people 'discovering' ice?

Even European Russia with the non-Slavic republics of the Caucasus removed is exceptionally huge when compared to the historical territories of other European ethnic groups, especially when it's remembered the Byelorussian and Ukrainian lands were historically not considered distinct from Russian lands.

I'd like to know what the extent of Russia would be without the Czarist policy of eastern and southern settlement.

I've read about it before and several theories exist, but are there any new developments or theories that have emerged recently to explain the legion's disappearance from historical record in 120 AD? Or any scholarly agreement on what happened?

Did women find them useful? If you didn't abide by the advice would you be considered a bad wife or mother? Were there communities who used them more than others?

I'm interested in studying more about the Russian Civil War. Does anyone know of any scholarly online resources on this conflict and its origins? Any recommended books?

While I'm aware that the idea for using the "Common Era" has been around for some time, my experience in my area (Eastern USA) is that it's use in common textbooks began in the late 1990s. How did the academic communities feel about this change (assuming it registered on their radar at all).

Reading up about the first seven Ecumenical Councils (particularly at the first Nicaean and the first two Constantinopolitan councils) the status of the Arian belief system seems to crop up again and again as a subject of great importance to Pentarchy.

From what I understand and feel free to correct me), Arian Christians were concerned with the nature of Christ. They rejected the belief that Christ was one with God and the Holy Spirit, believing instead that he was created by God.

What was it about these teachings that so inflamed and preoccupied the church? As a modern reader looking back on the issue, I don't quite grasp why it was seen as such a challenge to the status-quo.

I know pilots having multiple crashes isn't too uncommon, but has crashing a train always been a career ending mistake?

I was told this by a variety of different teachers at different schools throughout my high school education. Surely there would have been some instances were people had dug recesses into the ground for the purpose of defence during combat at some other point in human history?

If it is true that the Maori were the first was this something that would have been used in inter-tribal warfare or exclusively against the British? We're these defences constructed around pā exclusively for defence or would they also be dug around enemy pā during offence?

Perhaps my ignorance about the Lone Star state has skewed my perception of its geography and history, but it seems as though the land of central and east Texas is mostly grassy plains. Why, then, has Texas's population burgeoned and how has it become the economic powerhouse it is today?

There are a few topics I want to be more informed on. I currently have next to zero knowledge on them, and it's difficult to determine if what I am reading is legitimate, or done by conspiracy theorist. While this question does not fall within the scope of /r/AskHistorians, I figure there is no community on Reddit that would be more suited to answering.

Thanks in advance!