I know the term "Byzantine" wasn't really introduced until the 19th century as a way for scholars to differentiate the empire during its medieval period and late antiquity, but from what I've read, the citizens of the "Byzantine" empire never referred to themselves as "Byzantine", and in fact never even referred to themselves as "Eastern Romans". They called themselves the Roman Empire and the people referred to themselves as Romans. Did this continue until the 1400s when Constantinople fell to the Ottomans?

As basic as it sounds, I'm having trouble distinguishing these. I cannot distinguish approach from technique or historical theories from historical fields. If you could give me a history book, for example, and point out specific approaches, techniques, fields, and theories, it would really help! Thanks!

I'm not sure if this is even the right subreddit for this question, but I'm starting to apply for PHD programs in modern American literature (please, no comments about 'no humanities jobs', I've heard it all before) and I've noticed that there seems to be some kind of fundamental 'break' within multiple academic disciplines (sometime in the 1970's, from what I can tell) that lead to the development of the concept of 'post-modernity' broadly speaking.

I realize this can be a contentious issue for anyone interested in recent history and that periodized labels like 'modern' and 'post-modern' are themselves fundamentally flawed and highly subjective. Yet I'm finding the question larger and more troubling the more I look into it within the context of American literature, and wanted a broader historical perspective.

Is the rise of the idea of 'post-modernity' simply a product of isolated thinking in the academic humanities, or are there larger, more powerful historical factors at play which contributed to it's development?

Would the Anglo-Saxon nobility be living in castles by the time of the Norman conquest? If not how long did it take for the English elite to start living in what most people today would consider to be a castle? What did the buildings before that look like?

How much did an, for example, divisional commander know about where the parts of his division were during a battle? How detailed was this knowledge?

(As an example, did Pickett know where single regiments were during his infamous charge? Or did he 'just' know about his brigades?)

What if he wanted to know about where they are? How would those messages get sent around on the battlefield?

Also, how/if at all would smaller formations report about their position?

Would, say an regimental commander report his location to his brigade commander?

The Unification of Japan and Late Sengoku Jidai is an absolutely fascinating time in history, it reads like fiction. So much so that I'm working on adapting it into a work of fiction and so I'd like to know more about the interpersonal relationships and personalities of the major players.

Thanks in advance.

[deleted]

I'm trying to find out what capabilities of the Nautilus were classified when it was first launched. When was the public made aware that we had created the first nuclear powered vehicle? Was the fact that it could launch nuclear missiles known?

[deleted]

Hello everyone! I am an IB student, and in the IB we are expected to write a detailed essay about a certain subject. I have chosen History as my subject, and I decided to examine the long term longevity of WW2 Germany using the various Scandinavian kingdoms during the viking age as a case study. However, while finding good sources about the economics of Nazi Germany is almost trivial, finding good sources about the economics of the vikings is not so. My question is: are there any good sources, primary or secondary, from which I can learn about the way the vikings made money, so to speak? I tried searching it up and google, but the only thing I found was a book about modern Scandinavian economics. Any help will be much appreciated!

(... sorry about my bad english)

Problably this question would be better suit to r/archeology but as i trust the information in this subreddit, so here we go...

There are some people claiming that chinese society originated in a egiptian (or hyksos) expedition and is getting some suces here in my region

So

How wrong is that? This has any chance to be a right claim?

So, yeah, I've seen several major roads called "Union Street" in several different states. Are they named for the Union in the Civil War, or are they commemorating organized labor?

When Rome had an empire they colonized everything around them: France, Spain, Algeria, Lybia, etc.

After the fall, the power dynamic shifted. How was it decided where the power went? Northern African countries are still Mediterranean just like European ones. Why did European countries on the Medditerranean, like France, become so strong -- but Northern African countries like Algeria just became France #2? Or did it come into power by its own accord and I am just historically ignorant?

I've read quite a bit about the Arian Controversy over the years, though a lot of it open source and quite dated. There's a lot written about the theologic dispute surrounding Arianism, Semi-Arianism, Wulfila, etc., but I haven't read much about the organisation of Arian Christianity. Do we have any sources on if and how the organisation of Arian Christianity, especially later Gothic and Lombard Arianism, differed from that of Nicene Christianity?

I understand that after the reign of Diocletian, the Roman elites gradually abandoned the traditional plain toga for the elaborately decorated Chlamys clasped with ornate fibula. An article I've read mentioned that during the late antiquity, the old fashioned togas are "worn only in formal occasions". When did the Romans cease wearing togas altogether?

My dear friends!

I have a few questions which I'd like to ask you.

Now, there is a common view that human sexuality was more or less the same at all times - and that cultures that claimed to be more sexually reticent were just being more hypocritical.

But it's not completely true as we know - the perception of sexuality, gender, etc. has altered over the centuries and differs in different cultures. For example, today women are perceived as being less interested in sex than men, but up until the later 19th century they were perceived in many parts of Europe as beign the most sexually active gender. Some sexual activities are seen as acts of dominance, and others are seen as acts on submission.

So here are some relevant questions I have to ask about this.

1. What's a good and accessible book (I have a Master's Degree in History and am studying for a PhD, but it's in a different field) where I can find some discussion of these changes, in particular in terms of how it pertains to the Western World in the 18th and 19th century? For example, how did the perception of the various sex acts differ from what it is now?

2. What's a good book on the history of love? Everyone knows, I think, that in the modern day things like 'love at first sight' are seen as unhealthy and unreasonable by educated people, and the relationships Romeo and Juliet or Marius and Cosette had are seen as vaguely unhealthy to downright creepy in the modern world. [Part of why Twilight is seen as creepy as hell is because characters in it act like charactes from 18th century romance novels] What is the history of these things, is there a good book about the time period?