Allow me to explain my question a bit. "KGB" is "Committee for State Security". But one of the founding principles of the Soviet Union is that everything would be governed by a council, or "soviet", instead of power being held by one person for too long.

Of course, we know that it never really worked out that way, but the Soviets were very good at talking the talk, as it were. Why, then, was the KGB named the "Committee for State Security" instead of the "Council(Soviet) of State Security"? Wouldn't it have made more sense politically for them to call it the Council of State Security?

This is a question that's always kind of rolled around in the back of my mind, because I've never seen any discussion of how these coinage "heads" were actually made and what people worked from. Do we have, for example, cases where the head wasn't changed, but just the name? This potentially applies to a huge swath of land and a vast reach of time, so I'll slightly narrow it to "400BCE to 500CE, eastern Mediterranean" for argument's sake.

Did they each have a palace in the city or did they share one? Did the dynasties ever intermarry? Did the Agiads or Eurypontids take precedence in certain functions?

I've never seen any photos of them, but seeing as many American soldiers had tattoos I was wondering if the Germans had them as well.

I've recently been trying to learn about the formation or decline of some of the more prominent historical nations (England, the Mongol Empire, Rome, etc.) and it seems as though many of the key leaders would absorb soldiers into their ranks that they conquered. In some instances, much of the army in question consisted of soldiers they once fought against and conquered. It got me wondering, how common was this? Were there many instances of it backfiring? It seemed that oaths and allegiances did not really mean all that much in the past. Soldiers would just as soon fight against for their enemy. These did not seem to be mercenaries either, although I guess they were paid in safety and the loot from victories. It just seems strange to me as I can't imagine something like that happening now but seems relatively common place in the past.

As a Brazilian I don't have many textbooks about Lithuanian history, so I'm asking this community here what I'm trying to know. Sorry if this question is too long (considering its subquestions), but this is my first post here.

a) Is it correct to call Lithuania a Grand Duchy in 1241? When that title really can be aplied to the country?

b) What was the real extension of the country in 1241? I've found a few maps online, but some of them contradict each other. If a more accurate map could be indicated I'd be glad.

b.1) What about towns and major villages? Which ones were the most important at the time? Is it possible to indicate where they were located?

c) When the Teutonic Order started their crusades (if I can use that word in this context) against Lithuania?

d) Am I correct to assume the great conflicts of that period were the Teutonic Order on the west, the Livonians on the north, and Rus under the Mongols on the east?

e) Literacy seems to be rare in 1241 Lithuania and, as far as I know, there was no written Lithuanian language at the time. What were the usual written languages?

e.1) Birch wood manuscripts were a common thing? Or they were alien to the country at the time?

Thanks in advance for all answers.

E.g what Britain was an empire why didn't queen Victoria or King George have the title of emperor or empress?

Is it a false friend, or (as the name sounds like) does Swabia have anything to do with the old germanic tribe of the Suebis? On that note, how complete was their migration to Iberia? What prompted their mass migration, and assuming (like most European places impacted by the Migration era) modern Portugal is an admixture of the extant population and the migrants, what can you tell me about the people who lived there prior? Were they Celtic?

I was browsing the U.S. President's Wikipedia page and I noticed that after Truman left office all President's from then on began taking the Oath in January. Was there special circumstances following Ike's election which then became precedent or was a law passed?

More specifically, if they did what sort of powers did they have and what city functions did they oversee? If not how were city state functions overseen?

In my mind, the Hundred Years' War (Crecy; Joan of Arc) are very much thoroughly medieval. On the other hand, Christopher Cokumbus' travels to America are very thoroughly "of modern times". Yet, these events are only 40 years apart.

Is the distinction bad history, or did something fundamental happen over the last part of the 15th c. that actually changes our view of people in that time period?

The full phrase was something along the lines of "Italian master race destined to rule over and civilize all lesser groups". It was made in the context of the panic Romans had with regards to the Germanic tribesmen which contested that "master race" perception. In full when, if ever, did the Romans/Latins start to view themselves as a "master race" and did the Germanic tribesmen ever manage to shake certainty in this mindset.

Hello, fellow historians! I am a Hebrew Bible/ANE scholar who is making an attempt at learning Ugaritic. I have several ancient languages under my belt (mostly Western Semitic, but Akkadian and Greek as well) and I am looking for a reputable grammar. If you have any experience with the language, which would you recommend? I know that John Huehnergard published an Ugaritic grammar, but I've heard it is not nearly as useful as his Akkadian grammar. Any advice will help. Thank you!

TL;DR: How did you learn Ugaritic?

Here are two contradictory quotes from two pop history books I have read regarding whether Jews attempted to convert non-Jews in the Roman Empire:

Though Jews had had a strong presence across the Eastern Mediterranean for centuries, there is no evidence they attempted to convert Gentiles to their beliefs. Judaism was a national religon, not something to be pushed on outsiders.

• Matthew Kneale, An Atheist's Guide to Belief, p114

Because Jews themselves were later on the sharp end of Christian and Muslim missions, there is a reluctance to accept that Judaism itself was a missionary religion. Yet as early as 139BC, Jews were being expelled from Rome for trying to convert Roman citizens. A little later, the great lawyer-politician Cicero complained about proselytizing Jews. Two emperors, Tiberius and Claudius, transported Jews from Rome for the crime of trying to convert Romans. Roman writers such as Horace, Seneca, Juvenal and Tacitus all discuss the issue. Later, the emperor Theodosius published ferocious decrees in the Christian era against anyone who attempted to make converts to Judaism.

• Andrew Marr, A History of the World, p129

So who is right here, and is there any consensus among historians?

From what I have gathered they were well received books at the time of their release, but they are a little dated and I'd like to know how much they still hold true. The books are The Greatness that was Babylon by H.W.F. Saggs, Egypt of the Pharaohs: An Introduction by Alan Gardiner, The Hittites by O.R. Gurney, and The Persian Empire by J.M. Cook. I was thinking about returning them if they were too out of date as they were quite expensive.

I also have two follow up questions.

1. Why do all these books use footnotes instead of a bibliography?

2. Why do most of these authors use their first and middle initials followed by their last names instead of their first and last names.

So, I've been playing some Hearts of Iron IV recently (grand startegy game; good game, but it has its flaws) and in the game, China is divided into the Kuomintang government (under Chiang Kai-shek), the communists (under Mao Zedong; in Shaanxi) and several warlords: the "Guangxi Clique" under Li Zongren, "Yunnan" under Long Yun, "Shanxi" under Yan Xishan, the Xibei San Ma (under the Ma family) as well as Xinjiang in the west, under Sheng Shicai. In the game, these different warlords are independent countries. How accurate is this for the game's start in 1 january 1936?

My question is abstract, but I want to know the opinions of this subreddit on this topic. How old does an event need to be to go from the contemporary to the historical? Is the Arab Spring now considered historical? How about the beginning of the Trump Primary and his groundswell of support? Where do we as historians draw the line?

My doubt comes due to Diogenes' tales. I cannot believe that such a person, easily one of the known philosophers, can subject himself to those conditions at anytime. Budh, when he begged, did NOT defecate and masturbate in public.

Is is not a lot more likely that Romans fantasized about them? Simply exaggerating something like "He said those defecators are not wrong" to madness.