While reading his description of the Germanic tribes clothes I found this paragraph particularly interesting-

"They choose certain wild beasts, and, having flayed them, diversify their hides with many spots, as also with skins of monsters from the deep, such as are endangered in the distant ocean and in seas unknown"

What monster of the deep is he referring to? If I understand the geography correctly he must be referring to creatures from the North Sea, right? What sea creatures do we have on the fossil record from that area and time period that no longer exist?

Would there have been a lot of people there? Was she read her last rites? Are there any known last words? How extravagant was the execution?

Native tribes took land from other tribes and had their own territorial conquests before the Europeans arrived, so why is there such a negative perception on the land being 'stolen' from the Native Americans, who had previously stolen it themselves?

I recently ran across a quote attributed to Oscar Wilde. Someone made the accusation the vocabulary was not used during his time and this could not possibly be his quote. The quote in question:

"Everything in the world is about sex except sex. Sex is about power."

Did Talleyrand undermine Napoleon's diplomatic overtures to Tsar Alexander pre/during/post Tilsit? I've heard that Napoleon was attempting to create a stable imperial order with Russia and France as the two main European powers but Talleyrand, not liking this idea, alienated Tsar Alexander from Napoleon with backdoor dealing, is this true? If so, to what extent?

Say, for example, that I want to argue that the French Revolution contributed to the preference of conservative forms of government. What do I need to look at in order to understand the trends and motifs of that setting?

For example, I am referring to:

• Several high-ranking Persian nobles were killed by Alexander himself or his bodyguards, although Alexander was stunned by an axe-blow from a Persian nobleman named Spithridates. Before the noble could deal a death-blow, however, he was himself killed by Cleitus the Black at Grannicus.

• Alexander then mounted his beloved horse Bucephalus, took his place at the head of his Companion cavalry, and led a direct assault against Darius. The horses that were pulling Darius' chariot were injured, and began tossing at the yoke. Darius, about to fall off his chariot, instead jumped off. He threw his royal diadem away, mounted a horse, and fled the scene at Issus.

• Alexander, while leading the charge, formed his units into a giant wedge, which quickly smashed right into the weakened Persian center. Darius' charioteer was killed by a spear, and chaos rang out as everyone (incorrectly) thought it was Darius who had been killed. The Persian line then collapsed, and Darius fled. Darius escaped with a small core of his forces remaining intact, although the Bactrian cavalry and Bessus soon caught up with him. The remaining Persian resistance was quickly put down. In all, the Battle of Gaugamela was a disastrous defeat for the Persians, and possibly one of Alexander's finest victories.

Pretty much in every single battle Alexander and his cavalry make some heroic charge and directly go to the heart of the Persian army and directly towards Darius. It always makes out Darius to be weak willed and a coward as well while Alexander is elevated to Homeric heroism.

How true is all of this, and is their a consensus among historians? From what I understand Hans Delbruck pretty much states that all of this is Macedonian propaganda.

One of common themes of the World Civ 1500-Present course I'm in is that from the onset of civilization, the east utilized collective property. The professor uses this as an explanation as to why state ownership is endemic to the east, also to hint that Maosim utilizes this ancient tendency.

By contrast, and attempting to explain the origins of capitalism/liberalism, he claims the west has always been based around private ownership.

I'm curious if there is much information to substantiate these claims, and although I don't mean to question the legitimacy of my professor and his research, I'm not totally convinced these theories are as important to explaining as much they're made out to. In short, if the modes of production of the ancient west and east offer any explanation to what we've been taught.

I feel like the Union would've accused the Confederacy of Lincoln's Assassination and would've taken up arms again. Was this the case? If so, what prevented a second Civil War?

I've seen this several times online and it sounds plausible, but I've never been able to find a primary source.

Damnatio memoriae is absolutely fascinating. However, I don't have full understanding of the absolute severity. Also, the effects on Roman society and our current understandings of history. Are there missing pieces in history that are a byproduct of Damnatio Memoriae? Pieces of history historians wish they knew. It would be wonderful if anyone could provide excerpts, or simply share their favorites. I understand damnatio memoriae is not solely a Roman punishment. Huge Soviet history nerd, so I have a general understanding of its use during Stalin's time. If there any other personal favorites, from different time frames/cultures, that would be fun too. Thanks.

"No one knows" is an acceptable answer.

Please, I need a TL;DR answer, I just don't understand.
Thanks

I have been reading Kropotkin's Mutual Aid, as well as The State:its Historic Role, and find his descriptions of the medieval commune/free city very interesting. He focuses (obviously) mainly on the mutual aid institutions present, and perhaps is idealistic or overly focused on the good. An example:

"In short there is a massive and varied documentation to show that mankind has not known, either before or since, a period of relative well-being assured to everybody as existed in in the cities of the Middle Ages. The present poverty, insecurity, and physical exploitation of labour were then unknown."

"With these elements - liberty, organization from the simple to the complex, production and exchange by the Trades (guilds), foreign trade handled by the whole city and not by individuals, and the purchase of provisions by the city for resale to the citizens at cost price - with such elements, the towns of the Middle Ages for the first two centuries of their free existences became centers of well-being for all the inhabitants, centers of wealth and culture, such as we have not seen since."

Are his depictions of commune life accurate?

What works is it worth reading to learn more about life in the communes?

I was thinking about this last week reading about the En-Gedi scroll.

I believe the most popular bible in the western world is the King James version of the Christian bible. It's been around a very very long time. There has to have been many discoveries made through archeology since this version of the bible became popular, including older source texts being discovered.

Have there ever been any reliable discoveries that disproved or differed from the most modern translations of biblical text for the consumer market?

In North America many tribes during the 17th and 18th centuries had plentiful access to firearms due to European traders eager to get their hands on fur and other goods. With some amassing a significant amount of power thanks to guns and incorporating the weapons into their culture.

I sometimes hear this contrasted with central and south America where the Spanish government was able to keep a much tighter control over the arms trade. Just how effective were the Spanish at keeping european arms out of the hands of the natives and why were they apparently much better at it than European nations in North America?