The word terrorism is hard to define in our current era. As Bridgette Nacos writes in her book, "Terrorism and Counterterrorism" "When public officials, the news media, and experts in the growing field of terrorism studies (what one observer has called “terrorology”) make definitional choices, the severity and the venues of violent deeds are not unequivocal guides."

Was this group considered a terrorist group at the time, what did they accomplish that could have been seen as a terrorist act, and what did the US media portray the french resistance group as?

Spectacle!

From the circuses of "bread and" to ticker-tape parades, history is filled with big splashy displays for an audience. Tell us the what--and more importantly, the why--of a spectacular, staged event.

Next week: Sacrifices

Whether it's ancient Rome, the Crusades, the French Revolution, or the Civil War what are the best books, biographies, anything for learning about the past?

As the first King of Wessex he could be looked at as the father of England and as the first Germanic King on the island.

Is it because we know little about him? Why does English monarch history start with Alfred the Great when Cerdic was his ancestor?

[deleted]

Current: "Propaganda"

On deck: "Civil Rights"

In the Hole: "Dams, irrigation, and waterworks"

For my own contribution to the country's great propaganda machine: Go Vote! Your country's democratic system only works if everyone gets out and makes their voice heard! Go on, get! Do what the whole mod team is doing: voting first and then procrastinating the day away on /r/AskHistorians!

In Dan Carlin's Hardcore History podcast, he says that we only have two historical sources of information pointing to Genghis Khan's appearance:

• He, at some point, was disappointed that his firstborn did not have his red hair.

• Someone described him as having "tiger eyes", what some people interpret as a sign that he had green eyes.

Both these characteristics are very far from how he is usually depicted in the media. Do we really only have these two historical sources? What do current historians believe?

Was/Is Lenin treated as a traitor for working and being paid by Germany in WWI or was it hidden or justified in some way? If and how perception of him changed in XX and XXI century from Russian people/historians/universities pov?

Candor: This has been bouncing around in my head for a while, but the chaotic 2016 election is especially making me wonder about the difficulties in staying objective and keeping a reasonable perspective, both about the present and about the past. How can you tell if you're closer to the fact of the matter or just getting more certain about your biases? But that's not really relevant or necessary for the question. I just want to establish what I think is a reasonable motive for the kind of vague question that could be seen as an attempt to forward some agenda.

I'm reading over my notes on Gaius Marius for an upcoming Ancient History exam. I know that he was consul for the second time in 104, and that this was illegal (though I understand that's a difficult word to apply to a society without a formal constitution). But was this just because he was elected consul in absentia, and by the people rather than the Senate? Did the fact that it was his second consulship come in to it? Was it actually allowed or not to be reelected to the position of consul?

This seems like such a simple question but I can't find the answer. I don't remember reading about anyone before Marius who was consul multiple times within their life, but this could well just be because my reading hasn't been wide enough. Thanks for the help!

Can someone point me in the direction of some books or research materials on this subject? Were they rounded up at the same time as the Jews? Killed sooner? How were they forced to live in concentration camps? What types of labor did they perform?

Just about all I know about is the upside down pink triangle. I can't seem to really find much else.

Why did the Europeans have "Line Infantry"? What made them so popular during this era? Isn't lining people up in a line and firing at each other a suicidal tactic?

I know it was expected in the 1940s because of the famous Chicago Daily Tribune headline "Dewey Defeats Truman." Surely, that wasn't always the case when information was being sent via Pony Express, train, telegraph, etc...

How long did it take for the press to announce a winner 100 years ago, 150 years ago, 200 years ago?

Did the French hide it?

My essay topic will explore how policy implemented by leaders of the Luftwaffe may have led to its downfall in the Second World War.

So far I have one source, Luftwaffe: A History by Harold Faber, and my three-angled argument is based on how the Luftwaffe failed to prioritize (in regards to it's focus on being the 'flying artillery' of the Heer), it failed to adapt like its enemies in each front, and that it failed to innovate (I read somewhere that they didn't use any new aircraft designs until the latter parts of the war when it was too late, and that the ju-52 had been over a decade old by the end of the war).

Based on that, I'm wondering if my angles of investigation are solid, and if I can be pointed to some more sources that would help back my arguments up.

Thank you in advance.

Opium use was huge in the 19th Century British Empire, and was typically smoked out of a large pipe. But my question is about Morphine. The most potent alkaloid of the opium poppy plant.

Morphine was extracted from the Poppy Flower sometime between 1805 and 1816 by Friedrich Wilhelm Serturner. He did multiple experiments with the drug on dogs, but they had all died. He then used it on himself and a few boys, and learned that it was a much better pain killer than Opium, and it offered quite a few recreational effects. It was sold legally over the counter for anything from a cold to menstrual cramps.

I've read a lot about the use of laudanum as a painkiller. Which was an opium tincture containing 1% Morphine. But it was discovered and sold long before Morphine was successfully extracted from opium.

So my question is: Before the advent of the hypodermic needle and syringe, which wasn't invented until around 1850. What route of administration was used in order to get Morphine into the body(Snorting, smoking, drinking, enema, etc.)?

Bonus question if you would be so inclined as to answer it: How common was the use of morphine in early 19th century(1820-1839) Europe(particularly in London)?