I recently picked up the book and within the first few pages he mentions that the Greeks thought the earth was flat. As far as I know that isnt true. How accurate of a resource is this book ?

Perhaps this is too broad of a question but it seems somewhat odd that the sword, a sidearm, would become the dominant symbol of fighting in the western world. Can anybody explain when and why swords have so much lore and prestige surrounding them?

[deleted]

Occasionally I see people writing that only a small part (5% or so) of the white population in the southern United States owned slaves before the civil war. It is usually used as a way of claiming that slavery wasn't really very widespread, or even not a big issue.

I understand that owning slaves would be something that only rich people could do, but the figure of 5% seems like it's hiding something.

For every slave owner, there ought to be a wife, kids, employees that worked in overseeing the slaves, skilled workers whose jobs depended on the kind of big farms that were only possible when using slave labour, etc. Even if each slave owner only had four or five other people in their families and as employees who oversaw slavery, we are talking about 25 to 30% of the white or non-slave population.

My question is, how large part of the white (or non-slave, I don't know what is more correct) population in the slave states before the civil war got their livelihood from slavery, either as owners, dependents of owners or from jobs that depended on slavery?

I guess it's just something I've noticed recently, and I'm not sure if this is a new phenomenon or it's been around for a while but why are the majority of posts I see related to war/military?

I'm genuinely curious as to why people are so interested in military history as opposed to any other branch of history? Is there a historical answer to this question or is it just a matter of what people think is 'interesting content'?

What I have come to realize is: the majority of people who say they are interested in history are really just interested in wars and battles. Why is this? There are so many more fruitful areas of study and interest. I don't mean to inject bias but it helps set up my question.

In short I'm asking if history or any historian can teach us anything about why such a huge portion of history is devoted to studying the actions, makeup, and aesthetics of militaries. People like Dan Carlin come to mind. I think there are many implicit reasons why military history receives so much attention, I just have a hard time naming them.

I should add that while I am a student of history in a way, politics and philosophy are my primary areas of study.

[deleted]

In history, there are many empires which controlled roughly similar regions, but after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, no other power had sole control of the Medieterranean Sea. I wonder, why is that? Was there any other empire which positively tried to do that or is this question too arbitrary?

Gratitude.

I'm trying to understand how the military and governments of WWI/WWII would have responded to a situation similar to the current one where 100 ISIS combatants are trapped in a cave system.

As a bit of an expansion on this, what about giving aid, such as, provisions to soldier in a situation like this.

It's been suggested that the seige of Malta was a step the Ottomans needed to take to advance further into Europe. How true is this? Could the ottomans have avoided decline if they succeeded at Malta?

Could they practice their religion? Were they exempt from military service? Did Catholic rulers try to appease them or convert them? They made up nearly all the population, so I'm curious how they were treated.

My sister is planning to put a time capsule under the new floorboards of her (400 year old) house; as a historian, what would be some good things to add for the future historians? (With a side question, what do you wish someone had preserved from 100 years ago?!)

Say it is 1590 or 1600 (or whatever), and I am talking to someone who is overly flirty, or taking excessive care with their word choice or rhythm, would it make sense for me, in that moment, to say something like "Okay, cool it Shakespeare."?

I guess this also begs the question on whether people predominantly spoke like Shakespeare at that time. I vaguely recall learning that his writing style was more or less the vernacular of the time. With that knowledge, if someone was holding a regular conversation and sounded very similar to Shakespeare, would it be out of the ordinary or tease-worthy?

I was reading that Hitler stormed out of an event over a black man in the Olympics. Meanwhile last night, Kenya almost won gold in long distance running. Was the addition of African competitors a recent thing? We're they not allowed or able to afford to enter?