I'm a graduating senior (in December, no I'm not graduating next week though I wish I was!) and I've got a list going but I'm still not sure how to evaluate master's programs. My field of interest is relatively niche, so I've been having a fairly hard time finding programs that might work.

As a child, I read in one of those "101 Wacky Historical Facts"-type books that Egyptian women would put cones of scented wax on their heads, which would melt throughout the day and drip down their bodies, perfuming their skin. It popped into my head recently and I Googled around, but I can't seem to find anything definitive. From what I can tell, it seems to have started as an explanation for the cone-shaped objects on the heads of women in ancient Egyptian art. Is there anything other than speculation behind this?

Iconoclasm was a huge thing, the Latin/Greek churches were hostile to each other even though they were both Christian. The Crusades, the 30 Years War, more stuff that I don't know about...

Why did it stop?

I find that the transition of the western world from Pax Romana to the medieval period is talked about sometimes like a drastic step backward, but would that really be seen in daily life?

Side note: I don't usually see this, but if this is too long a span of time for one person to be an expert in, I could see an interesting thread if multiple people answered just half of the question (0 or 1000 AD)

Even before large expeditions into Brazil began, granting access to the New World's natural resources, the Portuguese were sending ships around both West and East Africa as well as India, Indonesia, and Japan. How was this possible while directly controlling such a small amount of land compared to Spain, Britain, or even the Ottomans? Did this naval focus strain the Portuguese economy more than the other European great powers?

As in entity A and entity B overlap but they both have regions that do not belong to the other. Only political entities (even if it did not have actual ruling power) counts, so these do not include overlapping of cultural/ethinic/geographic regions.

Edit: sorry for bad grammar in title, not a native speaker and typed it in haste...

I'm currently reading Julian by Gore Vidal, and I was surprised to notice that although they still call each other Romans, at this point most of the elites are Greek, and the only 'Italians' shown are mostly officers in the military. The Augustus himself has never even been to Rome, and most of the elite seem to look down on Latin.

This is a huge contrast to the last book I read about Augustus Ceasar, where Latins controlled the whole empire, and the Greeks were looked down on, and seen as inferior to Romans.

So my question is at what point did the Greeks take over control of the Empire?

the guns i refer to are the ones before the Arquebus or hook gun (Assuming if there's a difference in effectiveness excluding the safety of the user). I am aware that it greatly depends on various factors, such as cuirasses thickness and the caliber or draw weight of the gun or crossbow, but overall, was the gun a step up for the crossbow in performance or logistical reasons?

I want to work as a historian or become a history professor. Some people I ask lately are painting a pretty grim picture. I am in love with history and would think it would be the best job in the world to be able to do this. Is there any advice for me who is about to embark on this endeavor?

Foot traffic was completely open until then even though the inner-German border was closed in 52. Why did they wait almost a decade?

I'm currently covering the War of the Spanish Succession, the Great Northern War, and The Seven Years' War without much trouble. But I'm having trouble fitting in the War of the Austrian Succession?

Also, if there is any other events in European History that you think would be relative to my paper, I'd like to know so I can research it.

The reason I ask is since my buddies and I watched Saving Private Ryan yesterday. I know it's not a great idea to draw historical inferences/make historical criticisms based on films, but it really seems like the a lot of lives wouldn't've gone to waste had the Allies used naval artillery or air-dropped munitions to deliver some sort of smoke screen onto the beaches in order to obfuscate views from German firing positions. I know I'm being an armchair general here, but was there a reason for not employing this tactic? Do you guys think it could've saved lives?

I read that the USSR had three branches of government, with the executive branch approving bills passed by the legislature, but also being compromised of the Presidium and the Council of ministers. Nominally speaking, the Presidium chair was the Head of State whole the Council chair was the Head of government. Yet the USSR had a communist party which was huge and complex, which had its own executive branch and legislature, headed by the General-Secretary. Reading about Soviet leaders, all except Lenin held the post of General Secretary on top of another important post. Who was in charge? Who checked whom? Was the communist party more powerful than the official government? Who would be considered the leader of the USSR?

Did the Romans set a precedent for how the Jews were to be treated by authorities?

I started wondering after I read about someone famous (cant remember who) saying that mankind only developed agriculture to be able to grow plants to make alcohol. How accurate is this ?

Knowing almost nothing about this significant period in history I really want to read up on it soon. When I was looking for what to read I found Peter H. Wilson's The Thirty Years War: Europe's Tragedy in the sub's booklist, but looking on goodreads I also found C.V. Wedgwood's book The Thirty Years War is very popular.

I was wondering if anyone here has read Wedgwood's book and could give me some insight on how accurate it is since it seems to have been written in the 1930s, and might be outdated compared to Peter's? Also, which might be a better read?

Perhaps I should also add that for me it isn't very important that it covers absolutely everything about the Thirty Years War as I will just be reading it for fun. I'm more of a casual reader so if the writing is quite convoluted I'm not sure I'll be able to stick with it (although I doubt these books are convoluted based on their popularity).

The Manhattan project took 130,000 people and 26 billion in today's dollars. It seems like an insane amount of effort to put into a project that had a major potential for failure. It seems like a no brainer in hindsight, but how did such a massive project with an uncertain future get approved?

i am a great fan of the total war series of games and in the attila version the huns are show with asian traces almost like mongols guns and clothes to, when in school i dont remember beeing taught that way. also what happed to the huns after the death of atilla? why they simply vanish?

Hello!

I am born and raised in Sweden, but both my parents are born and raised in Iran(I have never visited Iran). My dad has the title "Seyyed" and often jokes about us being descendants of Muhammed. I have been wondering about this lately as one of my relatives(that I had never met) recently died and I inherited a small fortune and a shitton of land in Iran, which I can only assume is "old money". Does it hold any truth to it at all or has it lost its meaning over the years?

Thank you in advance.