In the centuries after the death of Alexander, the successor kingdoms that sprang up following his death were still great powers in terms of their wealth, resources and military strength. Macedon, the Seleucid Empire and Ptolemeic Egypt were incredibly powerful nations and their armies seem to match Rome in terms of numbers, diverse troops and generals capable of leading them (Hannibal, the famous Carthaginian general, even led Seleucid forces for a time during his exile).

So why were these former great kingdoms no match for Rome? Egypt was the breadbasket of the Mediterranean, the Seleucids occupied a strategic place on the Silk Road and Macedon was still the predominant power in the Aegean and exerted great influence over the Greek city states.

I am aware that at the time of their conquest, all three powers had gone through a period of great decline and in particular, the Seleucids and Egypt had been wracked with political instability. But the question remains, how was Rome able to overcome all three great former empires?

How did class, wealth and gender affect this? Are there any unexpected differences or similarities to modern American or British birthdays?

Been reading about the Iliad and the Odyssey recently and was wondering just how accurate he was regarding Mycenaean culture? (He wrote the books considerably later than the events right?)

Thanks in advance!

How do we know when ancient, especially Classical European, texts were created?

Works of Plato, Pliny, Aristotle, etc.

In most of the cases the manuscripts we have are dated to Medieval or even modern times, how do we know that the text itself is ancient?

Hi! I'm having something of a quarter-life crisis, and I wondered if you could help me out.

I live in the UK, where we apply to university on the basis of predicted grades, and then are given 'offers' that are (usually) conditional upon achieving those grades. I've applied to study Philosophy and Literature, and I have some offers with which I am very pleased. There is, however, a problem: I feel right now like I really want to study history.

At age 16, I had to pick 4 'A-Levels': these were the subjects I would study, and in which I would gain a qualification, over the next two years. Almost all universities (quite reasonably) require a History A-Level to study History at undergraduate level; but I very much don't have one. I thought about it; but a number of factors led me to choose Politics instead.

When my friends talk to me about history, I get so excited. When I studied Politics, my favourite part was viewing the processes through which political structures evolved. I don't think this is a momentary infatuation with history. In literature, I love so much learning about the different ways people have understood the world through writing; but I increasingly feel like I'm missing so much, due to the extent to which this privileges the viewpoint of those for whom it is possible to write and be published. In Philosophy, one of the things I enjoy most is deconstructing the assumptions with which we live; but as I learn, it feels like many of the ideas in which I am most interested, like race, were never really established or defended through rational argument, but through more complex historical processes.

It doesn't seem as if pursuing History at undergraduate level is a viable option for me. I try to read around the subject in my spare time, but it can't offer me the same kind of rounded education. Sometimes I think about converting to History post-graduate; but this seems far too far ahead to be thinking about. What advice might you offer someone like me about how to pursue my interest?

Apologies if this is the wrong place to ask this question. It seemed like similar ones have been accepted, so I thought I'd try my luck.

A Destrier, Palfrey and Rouncey, for fighting, casual riding and carrying stuff respectively. Is it possible to lead that many big animals around on my own? Was a squire an absolute necessity for just transportation by itself?

The showdown at sunset is synonymous with cowboy culture, but how many documented cases do we actually have of this, if any? And where did this idea come from in pop culture?

I'm talking about the American bomber crews stationed in Europe.

ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS:

• How much free time did they usually have?

• Did they have to eat what the army provided? Could they eat outside in civilian areas?

• Where they all housed in one area/building?

• If they were housed in one building, were teams all in one room, or did they all have separate, close together rooms?

• How did they receive mail? Who handed it out? Was mail from the opposing side allowed if the member had family from there? Or was that strictly banned?

• After missions, were they examined for any injuries?

• Did bomber crews practice flying together even though they weren't on mission?

• How long did it usually take for a crew to complete twenty five missions?

Thank you!

I'm aware of a belief among some historians that the pacific was essentially about control of western colonies and the goods they produced. As such the notion that either side were fighting for the freedom of the occupied Asians is fundamentally wrong. To what degree is this an accurate representation of the motive behind the pacific war? Did colonialism impact the pacific theater/ww2 in general in any way other that this?

I'm curious to know whether or not generic S-M-L clothing was available to them, or whether everything they wore was made to order -- even for the least wealthy. The answer is likely something in between, so I'm perfectly happy to hear about that as well!

Source of claim: Terry Jones's Medieval Lives, episode 1.

I don't really understand why this necessitated boiling more than animal excrement normally does, if that was the case. Would be delighted to be filled in.

It's all in the title. Vikings and Pirates share a lot in common, with the main differences being that Vikings were more of a conquering people while Pirates just wanted loot and didn't colonize anything (that I know of anyway).

:)

It just seems like such an odd reversal. The king and his mother had clearly been putting a fair amount of effort into making peace with protestant leaders, what with marrying Margaret to Henry of Navarre, and Charles IX's attempts to pacify Coligny.

So why did the king and company suddenly change their minds and decide to have a bunch of people killed? Having just brokered a peace a few years back, it seems like the last thing they'd wanna do is further antagonize the protestants, surely?

Considering his opposition to the war was founded on a very intellectual basis, and that his desired area of focus was Europe, could he be a follower of 'realpolitik'? Thank you for any responses.

I wondered if anyone could explain why we still have Catholic nuns in the UK but not Catholic monks. Surely nunneries were subjected to iconoclasm along with monasteries?

[deleted]

It seems like a stupid question but I was thinking about it and in 1865 it doesn't seem reasonable that the same day a law was put in place it would go into effect. werent their slave owner who simply refused to give up slaves? If the south relied so much on slave labor how were they able to deal with sudden loss of that cheap labor.

I was recently watching the original Rambo movie and got to wondering, why did all the other vets in the movie working in the small town police force hate John Rambo, basically on first sight? Is this an accurate historical depiction? Was it just his long hair and old clothes? How did vets of WWII and Korea view returning Vietnam vets?