Was this an old accent that changed, or is there another explanation?

When the war was over (and even during it), how were Americans treated? Would anyone care? A friend told me a joke about Americans being treated like rock stars after the revolutionary war and I'm curious what reaction if any they had.

I mean in the literal sense not slave-like conditions I.e sharecropping. Possible owners just didn't know since information could have been hard to come by or deliberately avoided freeing their slaves. Possibly out in the far west or deep in the mountains?

As I understand it, since the Nile River flows North to South, did the Egyptians think the world was upside down to what we know it is? I'm not sure how much of Egypt and past it they knew of back in say the old or middle kingdoms, but didn't they think the the world was upside down? I look at maps of of Ancient Egypt and was curious, though all I found were right side up.

I'm curious what an ancient civilization would make of a giant fossilized T-rex.

[deleted]

I've been watching Donald Kagan's Yale lectures on ancient Greece. He spoke about hoplite warfare in the most recent video I watched.

A student asked about flanking and Kagan makes the point that if the wings moved to attack the flanks then they would expose their own flanks.

My question is what would stop small groups breaking away from the rear of a phalanx and moving independently on the flanks?

A small enough number of hoplites that the integrity of the formation would not be broken. Kagan himself makes the point that the rear line were only occasionally involved in pushes and other than that only moved to fill in gaps.

If a phalanx is set up in such a way that they are fighting straight ahead with limited mobility otherwise than would a small flanking group be able to harass the flanks enough to cause a break in formation and allow the main line to exploit the gap and envelope the wings?

Edit: I should clarify that I mean in the early days of Greek warfare I realise things were quite a bit different when talking about the massive numbers seen when you get into the Persian wars.

I'm not sure how to contrast the two situations properly. I personally don't know enough about any of the systems to address the question with any confidence.

I was reading about the city of Uruk, with the name being split into Ur- meaning "city," and -uk, which is generalized as meaning fertile or something along those lines. The prefix "Ur-" is also used for the root world of Jerusalem: Urusalima, which split up into Ur- and -salima, with the suffix meaning peace. This suffix is also linkable to modern-day Arabic and Hebrew, as -salima means peace like the Arabic "salam" and the Hebrew "Shalom" mean as well. With this linkage being obvious, are there not any other linguistic linkages between semitic languages and old Sumerian that may deem Sumerian not a language isolate? Or am I missing important details?

Given the social nature of stand-up comedy, specifically given the social nature of writing jokes for physical delivery to a group of humans, to me the term "anecdotal evidence" doesn't exactly apply to the somewhat scientific nature of jokes, and the scientific nature of the wording of jokes.

Does this community accept spoken word specifically comedic sources for information? For example, the american Louis C.K. may have reached a conclusion about evolution in a specific written joke that he applied to his TV show now available in link form here, and this joke can be exactly written here. Can this joke be a piece of /r/AskHistorian answer or question evidence?

Were everyday troops in the Taiping rebellion on either Sadie conscious of fighting for some higher cause? (Whether nationalistic or religious)

I'm reading Autumn in the Heavenly Kingdom by Stephen R Platt and while it's a well written narrative history it doesn't really talk about the social aspects of the war. He seems to imply that most soldiers in the war were merely fighting for whoever recruited them first. With the exception being maybe the Hunaness army which was bonded together in part by their shared provincial home. Is this an accurate picture?

[deleted]

About to sit a mock history GCSE tomorrow and it's pretty vital info. I'd been told Hippocrates for a year, then the teachers changed their minds and said it was Aristotle. But Hippocrates died when Aristotle was 14, so who actually was it? Thanks :)