Were they similar to the ancient Roman frontier fortifications? Can anyone put me in the direction of a resource, be it book, YouTube or web article, where I can learn? I’ve recently been fascinated by this topic but haven’t been able to find any information on my own.

Thank you.

After years of subscribing to this subreddit, I’ve only just discovered there is an associated podcast. With nearly 200 episodes on potentially weighty topics, the back catalog is a bit intimidating. So what are your favorite episodes? I’m open to all suggestions, I’ve got a pretty broad curiosity on the subject of history.

EDIT: this question is also open to mods of this sub, and producers, hosts, et al., of the podcast itself.

Sorry for the very broad question, I just want to know how one gets started deciphering a language. The thought came to me when I wondered how they made translations for things like the Iliad or the Republic. I assume we try to connect it to our modern day languages but I also assume a lot of the time there isn't much context for what symbol means what, how the grammar functions, or even how it's read.

Basically my question is what it says. What happens at night when the sun goes down in Ancient Rome? What were Romans doing to unwind at the end of the work week? Was nightlife even a thing back then?

As far as I'm aware, the region of modern Israel was divided into two countries, Judea and Israel, before it was conquered by the Persians. Since Judea was the kingdom containing Jerusalem and also the one ruled by King David, I would think that it would have higher significance to the Hebrews, so why did they decide to name their new country Israel?

In the lead up to the 1999 return of Hong Kong to China was there a debate over whether to return it to the PRC or the ROC (Taiwan)? What were the cornerstones of each sides argument? Was there a belief that returning Hong Kong to the PRC would "liberalize" the PRC? Did the ROC oppose returning Hong Kong to the PRC?

So, I watch a lot of crime investigation tv shows and something that always bugged me is how theyll occasionally bring up “old kgb files released after 1991.” Or something along those lines. I wanted to ask if these files A.were ever actually declassified by the Russian government B.Shared with the general public C.Translated into english(or other non-Russian languages)

I imagine that when mining for gold, iron, or other minerals, ancient people must have come into contact with deposits of radioactive materials, like uranium, more than once

Do we have records of this happening?, did they realize the harmful properties of these minerals?, did they try to use them for anything?

Title. To put it simply, I often get conflicting answers, from the atomic bomb to the Emperor buying into Truman's bluff, to the Soviet invasion of Manchuria. I was hoping to get a somewhat straight answer on the main cause on Japan surrendering. I would also like to know if this is debated in the academic world,or is it like the south fought to preserve slavery, where most historians agree on the facts and the debate is exclusively for political reasons.

I know of the concept of tzniut, and the tallit with its tzitzit (Num. 15:38; Deut. 22:12) and the yarmulke (Bavli Shabbat 156b) both make sense to me; the rest of the Jewish men’s clothing, not so much.

Context:

I am writing a book on 1980s/1990s "gross" toys, and I am currently mapping out a chapter on the history of the toy business leading up to the 1980s. One thing that sticks out to me as fascinating is that food companies purchased some toy companies in the late 1960s and 1970s (Nabisco acquired Aurora Plastics; General Mills acquired Donruss and Kenner; General Foods acquired Kohner; Quaker Oats acquired Fisher Price; etc.).

One of my sources for toy history (Toyland, Stern & Schoenhaus, 1990) mentions a diversification trend at this time, but doesn't say much more than "it was happening then". I would love to know more about why it was happening then, as well as why, by the early 1980s, these food companies were divesting themselves of toymakers.

I sense also an aspect of conservatism vs innovation at play in these decades. At least with toys, I think the general trend in the 70s was towards more conservative play patterns and toy categories. In the 80s I see a trend of ground-up toy design, where the model of letting toy designers pitch and develop new ideas (for entirely new products as well as extensions for existing brands). And by the mid-90s, that model was ditched; I suspect this is because, after Hasbro and Mattel bought up all the other companies, there was less need for competition/innovation.

So I'm also interested in knowing whether 1) this matches other trends in industries, in general or at that time and 2) whether I'm at all on the right track for framing all of this.

All that's for context, and it's a lot of questions, but my main hope is still the question in the title. If there's a more appropriate subreddit, please let me know. Thank you!

So for a internship I am working through a Latin text from the 11th century Low Countries: De Diversitate Temporum ('On several things of this time') by Alpertus of Metz.

In it, Alpertus tells of a man in an inn who supposedly said the following:"...that the human soul amounts to nothing and that it leaves the body completely with the last breath to disappear into the air".

My Latin is pretty bad and the above sentence is my own translation of a Dutch translation of the Latin original. I will post the Latin at the bottom of this post.

Still, the writer condemns the man for saying this but it did make me wonder how common this denial of the continued existence of the human soul after the expiration of the body was during this time. I certainly had never heard of it in a medieval context.

The Latin:
"Audivi fidelem nostrum teferentem, quendam ex his miseris, cum in tabernis vino estuans derisisset sanctum hominem, ad hanc etiam miserabilem vocem erupisse, animam hominis nihil esse et in ultimo flatu in auras penitus evanescere". from: Alperti Mettensis, De diversitate temporum, ed. A. Hulshof (Amsterdam 1916), p. 24-25.

*Comparing to the rest of Europe

On one hand, they managed to avoid any massive destruction or manslaughter. On the other hand, countries that were involved had a chance to start a new chapter, often with foreign American or Soviet aid. Did the tradeoff exemplify itself on the Pyrenees Peninsula?

I have often been told that Frank Sinatra was influential in ending bans on black people eating and staying in many hotels due to a refusal to perform anywhere that wouldn't serve Sammy Davis Jr. Is there any truth to this? Additionally, if this is true, is there any evidence of this having a wider impact outside of individual establishments, at the city or state level?

so i was playing total war shogun 2 and i realized something after about 50 hours of gameplay. none of the units have shields and as it tuns out japanese dident use shields for some reason ? what was the reason ?

I've been wondering, how did naval warfare work before the invention of gunpowder cannons? I know the ramming and arrows were used, but I can't really imagine extreme damage to ship by volleys of arrows and javelins. Was combat using marines to jump and attack the other ships' crews. Were the goals of combat to kill the enemy crew and not sink the ship?