I posted this last night and people said I should ask over on this sub.

Anyway, I was just wondering why the Athenians would do something like this.

Where there ever a real risk of each state going its separate way, or of multiple federations coalescing?

I've heard that the word dollar comes from the word thaler, which were one-ounce silver coins minted in renaissance-era Europe. Does the British pound have a similar predecessor? i.e. were one-pound silver coins ever common? Where were they used, who used them, and how?

So that's my question. The time-frame is from the end of the 1st world war till the 2nd one.

Ideally i'd like to know about non Roman/Greek.

After the Phoenicians fell did Carthage consider itself as the last bastion of the Phoenicians or did it consider itself to be seperate but related to the old Phoenician culture?

Damnatio memoriae (the Roman practice of attempting to totally erase someone from history) has always fascinated me. It usually seems to have failed (we always find a bit of pottery with someone's picture or a coin with someone's name on it), but do historians think that there is anywhere close to a real chance that it could have been successful?

Of course we'll never know for certain (as if it was successful then by definition we'd never know), but I feel like completely erasing someone worth erasing would be incredibly difficult, because if they were worth erasing that means they were probably already famous to begin with.

(to be clear, I'm talking about when damnatio memoriae was used for major figures of the era- not a common street thug or something like that)

Thanks!

I can find lots of infomation about open field battles and sieges but not so much about street fighting or fighting in/around a large building (such as La Haye Sainte and Hougoumont). I imagine there must have been theory about that type of fighting and I assume at least some armies trained for it? Where can I read about those ideas?

Basically, how did they get it so wrong?

[deleted]

I should start by saying I personally love redheads, and I'm Irish by birth, and have a strong affinity to my celtic heritage. I believe none of the things I am about to write about redheads.

I have wondered however if the way people jokingly talk about redheads has anything to do with a celtic association from Rome's celtic wars that's carried through to modern day. That redheads are soulless, quicker to anger and somehow evil, or if it came later through perhaps how England viewed the celtic nations. Was this some kind of racism that would be akin to how any people with distinguishing features seem to be treated in wartime even today, for example how Asian people were treated by some in the US during WWII and vice versa, or how people of middle eastern extraction can be treated today?

As indicated by the Battle of the Golden Spurs, at least some cities had well-trained infantry, and I'm under the impression from books like the Time Traveller's Guide to Medieval England that town-dwellers normally had significant martial ability. How did they ensure that when war came they would fight as a cohesive unit? Did cities have crossbow ranges for aiming practice? Did all the men of the right age of each town meet once a month and practice manoeuvring with pole-arms?

I'm looking to read Greek Mythology but I want to read the primary sources used (translated, of course). I don't want the "edited" version of an author. I want the crude, most authentic version. Is there such a thing available anywhere on the web or in a book I could buy? I'm looking for the most far-back source. Completely untouched.

I assume Phillipé disliked it because William would become independent and lose Normandy.

Hi there! I'm a student studying to get a history degree, and I've always been fascinated by the post-Great War peace process more than the war itself. What happened in Paris of 1919 changed the world and its consequences are still being felt world-wide.

Now, what happened in Europe after the peace process is, for the most part, pretty well known. Wilson got his League of Nations, but it was more of a bargaining chip rather than something European nations really wanted. Britain and France were out for blood after Europe had been ravaged, Germany was given most of the guilt, hence, the "War-Guilt Clause" Article 231, and Russia wasn't invited.

I'm curious to hear about what happened to other countries around the world. Now I believe that, for example, Chiang Kai-Shek visited the conference, going so far as to buy a suit for it, but that's just a bit of trivia. I'm curious to hear about how the treaty and the lead-up to it affected areas like China, Arabia, Latin America, Japan and Africa.

Now there's no "right" answer here, I'd just love to get some information from fellow historians.

Thanks for your time! -Riley

[deleted]

The UK is a founding member of Nato, and when Argentina invaded the Falklands it was a direct attack on British territory. Why wasn't Article 5 invoked?

For reference, Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty is

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

Yes, I know the Falklands technically is not in the North Atlantic, but neither is California and I'm pretty sure that if 9/11 had happened in San Francisco instead of New York that the US government would've invoked Article 5 just the same.

Add on to this question, if one of the Overseas departments of France like Guiana was invaded - would they be able to get Nato involved?

I'm only asking from my intro to anthropology experience.

In the 1960's Thor Heyerdahl reconstructed a raft that would have been used by ancient people to travel by wind and travel west across the pacific ocean. He did it successfully with no modern help. This was apparently so controversial because it sounded crazy, but also this theory and Monte Verde challenged the commonly held Northwest passage across Alaska theory.

We only learned about the theory, not how receptive the anthropological community was to this idea. How is research at Monte Verde going, and do people generally believe that Oceania was at least partially populated by people from South America?

Why did Christianity in Lebanon survive while in Iraq it died, in Egypt it was marginalized, and in North Africa it disappeared?

Hello! It's been my dream for a long time now to essentially become a master in an area of study (very vague, I know). But I wish to be consider an expert on something. But my biggest problem is that my interests varied widely and I feel as though I can only have basic, surface level knowledge of a subject. I am very jealous of historians who have seem to have found their passion and their niche, and I want to discover my own! Are there any tips on how best to go about this? If it helps, my interests includes:

1. The history of Christianity
2. The history of Islam,
3. The history of Socialism and Communism,
4. The interactions between this three areas

So I watched the Revenant a while back ago, it was pretty good but I felt like a couple of things were off historically.

I also realized that we Americans don't really talk about that time in our history when the movie takes place (1823). Who I felt was really out of place was Fitzgerald, his accent, being a Texan, his father being a Texas tanger etc.

So my questions for you historians are:

1.When did we develop an "American" accent? Particularly the southern/midwest one you hear in the movie 2. Were there Texas rangers in the late 1700s? 3. What was going on in the US during the 1810s-1830s?

I've just read a bit about so called Welch Indians on wikipedia. Were there really Native American tribes in America that spoke some dialect of the Welsh language? It is said they are the progeny of a Welsh Prince called Madoc ab Owain Gwynedd. He supposedly travelled west to the North Atlantic and built a colony there. Is this true or is this false? My mind just blew, so I need some more facts about this.