After we evolved into modern humans, we crossbred with the Neanderthals for a while. Today, we are the result of that crossbreeding.

1. Are we some kind of hybrid, different from the thing that directly evolved?
2. Did that thing have a different species / subspecies / name other than homo sapien?
3. Was that thing likely to have been superior to what we became instead?

Wondering this because I know very little about the relationship between the two "nations".

Yes, it does seem like a fairly silly question, but moving houses and cities in frigging 2021 is still a big deal. Even with movers and packers who just wrap up your entire house and then you take a flight and your entire house reaches its destination a few days later, even with that, it's a nightmare. How did people do that in the ancient world? DID people move their houses and cities in the ancient world? Did this concept exist or was it the general idea that once you purchased a property/ were born into your parent's property, you lived in it, then inherited it, then passed it on to your children before you died?

Also, in really prehistoric civilisations like the Indus Valley, Sumerian, the Chinese Peiligang culture, or even the much earlier Aurignacian Culture, did the concept of property exist? I know that at that time, the concept of 'house' itself might have been a strangely evolving notion, but is there any evidence of house and land ownership in prehistoric civilisations?

I swear i've read somewhere that due to the effects of the disease; namely the fact that it kills nerve endings that lepers were used as "special" units in the crusades for a chance at redemption in the eyes of God because the nerves were dead and they could keep fighting through their injuries and as a bonus the enemy would also contract leprosy. Is there any historical basis to this or is it something I made up?

I assume familiarity with Hannibal’s tactics at the Battle of Cannae.

Even after a fair amount of study, I remain confused about how exactly Hannibal flanked the Romans with his Libyan troops. How did he manage to hide both columns of his best infantry?

I assume the Romans didn’t just ignore the Libyans on each side as they fought the Gallic and Spanish troops. Had the Africans been visible, the Romans would’ve presumably engaged them as well to avoid exposing their flanks.

I understand that the Libyan troops weren’t positioned miles away from the fighting or anything. Rather, they sat right next to the cavalry.

I’ve read anecdotes indicating that Hannibal had his men kick up dust to obscure the Libyans, but that alone seems insufficient. What am I missing here? Thanks!

Hi, I reformulate my previous post which did not specified that I was interested in the history of fascism rather than its contemporary occurences. So I am looking for reliable books on fascism as a political movement from the 20th century. I am also wondering if Fascism: Comparison and Definition by Stanley G Payne is considered a good and reasonably up to date work?

Thank you in advance!

So we are having presidential elections in Chile and it was revealed that the father of one candidate (Kast) had joined the NSDAP in 1942. The supporters of said candidate claim that it was mandatory to join and, therefore, it doesn't imply that the father shared the nazi doctrine. Are they right? What was the perception sorrounding the joining of the party at that stage of the war?

Thought I'd ask here since google just mentions assassin's creed.

I know that his "cuirass" is probably lost forever as I have read online that all his stuff was removed from his body sometime after his death. It looks a lot like some random piece of armor, but made mostly of cloth so it would have disintegrated by now or as one person on a history forum speculated it ended up in some ancient storehouse and simply got thrown away in the end as no one knew what it was, but what about his royal scepter? It would be a clear treasure and couldn't be misstaken for some random piece of armor (or junk in this case)

Where could it be? Egypt, Greece or perhaps lost on the road.

I do know that India entered the war as part of the British Empire and I'm also aware that British India defeated Mussolini's army and helped the Allies gain ground in Fascist Italy. India also contributed in Allied battles in Africa against Rommel's army despite being the third-largest army (after the USSR and the US) in WW2, India's contribution isn't that widely accepted or recognised by the West. Why is that so?

This is a line from a book I am reading that, in this particular paragraph, mentions colonialism before Europe. I think it means that Chinese empire was bigger than European one? I find no proof for this statement though, so I am very confused. Can someone clarify?

Or variations on this, say that they wanted the Soviets to take the brunt of Germany? Or with an eye toward post-war advantage?

Hello,

I've been trying to get deeper into Tudor history, but I find it so hard to follow the book I'm reading, because all these titles, like archbishop, earl, and Lord Mayor, are so foreign to me. I've tried to research online, but most articles I find talk about those titles in modern times or partialy. Does anyone have tips on approaching all these titles and any resources I could use?

Athos, Porthos, and Aramis encourage D'Artagnan to "thrash" Planchet when he says he wants to know how to inspire "either the affection, the terror, or the respect" he feels due. So, in 17th-Century France:

1. What exactly did a "thrashing" entail?
2. Was it a common or accepted practice?
3. Dumas writes that Planchet thanked D'Artagnan after. Do we have any accounts of how servants actually felt about this?

The only information I can find on crucible material and design comes from medieval/renaissance Europe, where kaolin clay was used to make the famous "Hessian Crucible."

The problem is, that comes from the 15th/16th century, whereas the ancient Chinese were using blast furnaces since before the birth of Christ.

As such, I really want to know:

1. How different these ancient Chinese blast furnaces were to European early modern ones

2. What materials the ancient Chinese used to both make the actual furnaces themselves and the crucibles or other containers used to melt and hold the molten metal

3. Whether or not the technological innovations from China influenced the European blast furnaces, or vice versa

4. Why it took nearly two millennia for Europeans to start using blast furnaces compared to the Chinese or, equivalently, why the Chinese felt blast furnaces were better for their usage than bloomeries

Any help or sources are appreciated!

Before reading: Yes, I know that I asked the same question in another Reddit forum. But since I didn't get any answer there, I thought this forum could provide me with answers. Moderators, please don't mind it.

I am currently looking to read in detail about Indian history. In that regard, I have been read that RC Majumdar's An Advanced History of India is a good book. So on various Reddit posts, I saw how RC Majumdar is a very reliable historian. Hence I was motivated to check his book online.

That's what inspired me to check Majumdar's book from Amazon. But before ordering it, I wanted to take one final opinion from here.

So, my questions are 4:

1. How good is RC Majumdar's An Advanced History of India?

I mean in terms of its biases, opiniated stuff and all, is it fine? Because I recently heard that in an RTI, NCERT had no records on certain claims made in its history textbooks. And I was a history student till 12th standard CBSE. So this entire saga made me rethink and I realised that I knew next to nothing about Cholas, Cheras, Marathas, Ahoms or the tribes of India.

So while I am aware that there's no thing as an unbiased person, but I do want something as objective and comprehensive as possible.

2. How comprehensive is An Advanced History of India?

Does it cover all the major dynasties and kings in India? Because I did feel that NCERTs didn't cover all the aspects of Indian history comprehensively. There was too much on the Mughals, Britishers and the Medieval period. I couldn't find much on Cholas, Cheras, Pandyas.

And of course, I am a UPSC aspirant :D (in 2024). So I wanna have a solid base.

3. Can a beginner but interested person understand An Advanced History of India?

I am not a total novice. I had history as one of my subjects till 12th and even scored good enough marks in history. So I am not totally new to history. I do have the interest (just not enough to take history as a graduation subject :D )

4. How should I approach a scholarly book like An Advanced History of India?

I mean how should I read it? Should I make notes or something? How can I recall the important details? Can I randomly read chapters that I find interesting? Should I try to read the entire book in one go?

PS: Please don't take my queries in the wrong manner. I don't hate the Mughals or the Britishers. I don't hate or favour anyone. I just want a book that fairly covers all aspects of Indian history without going into too much detail about one specific period.

Just as the title says. Most everyone I've ever met would rather lose a fight than win by attacking someone's groin. I was wondering if that is true for societies that engaged in hand to hand combat/war? I obviously know that there have probably been people in every civilization that didn't care and did it anyway but I was mostly wondering if it was ever addressed as a rule of combat or something to that nature. Like if a gladiator nut tapped an opponent and then killed him, would that have been considered cowardly?(just an example). If this is in the wrong place please let me know and I'll post it elsewhere

When you read about Hans' life you get the impression he was a bit... odd

He attended a school for children when he was 22. He would start acting scenes of his plays at social events, unprompted, often interrupting whatever was going on. Charles Dickens was nice to him once and Hans took that as an invitation to spend over a month in his house, never realizing he was making Charles and his family very uncomfortable, never understanding they didn't like him back. He was open about his homosexuality but in a way that suggests he didn't actually know it was a taboo in his culture, like sending letters to men he was not close with about how "they made him feel like a woman," often making those men very uncomfortable...

It just doesn't sound real, it sounds like a little kid who doesn't understand how society works doing whatever he wants, except this was a grown man

Some may argue he was just "eccentric" but he doesn't seem eccentric to me, rather it sounds like he may have had a mental disability. That would explain why he was often so naive and clueless, and it would make his accomplishments all the more remarkable

Because I don't want to make it sound like I don't admire Hans. He wrote some of the most beautiful fairy tales in history and he rightfully deserves the fame he has to this day. If he was disabled in any way that just means his work is even more special than we thought

I've read that many thousands of Mesopotamian cuneiform tablets remain untranslated many decades after excavation because of a lack of qualified translators. I imagine that this dearth of qualified scholars is less pronounced in Ancient Greek studies, but is there a great deal of untranslated Ancient Greek material, and if so, has there been any collaborative initiative to train translators or to digitize manuscripts?

I want to know why a brutal chapter of relatively recent history has not been talked about that often in the United States.

So I understand there are no contemporary sources of Jesus, but that historians generally agree he existed. I am asking this from a totally non religous view point. What did he actually teach and what did he say that gave him so many followers? Can we actually know? Can we infer?

I am very interested in the actual person behind the myth. I am wondering if he really was as peace-loving as described. I have also read other accounts where he was called a doomsadyer. I'm just wondering what some historians can say they think about Jesus beliefs and teachings