In ancient Norse language please.

Thanks to /u/thefairyguineapig for the suggestion of this weeks topic.

Periodization is a term for the practice of categorizing the past into discrete blocks of time, organized by overarching characteristics. Concepts like the Stone Age, the Bronze Age, the High Middle Ages, the Early Modern World are all examples of Periods, and determining when those periods begin and end is what periodization is all about.

Because these time periods are concepts created (usually) by later historians as a way of analyzing past eras, there can be a lot of debate about when specific periods begin or end, and differing scope of time can lead to different perspective.

For example, when talking about the Civil Rights Era in the United States, it could be defined as starting with Brown vs Board of Education in 1954 and ending with the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr in 1968. However, someone might argue that the beginning should be pushed back to 1948 with the integration of the armed forces. Or others could argue that analysis of the Civil Rights era should from the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 and the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments. Still others could argue that rather than ending in 1968, that the Civil Rights Era continues to today.

How do these different definitions on when an era begins or ends change our perspective on the "lesson" or "meaning" of that era?

Should periodization attempt to be universal, and is that possible? Does breaking up history into periods that make sense for European or American history serve to impair understanding of African, Asian, or Precolumbian history of the Americas?

Does vocabulary matter? Does saying "Dark Ages" or "Medieval" color our perceptions compared to "early Middle Ages"?

Does dividing history into discrete periods create a false sense of distinctiveness/separation between these eras? Should we also/instead be looking at the similarities between Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages? The continuity from the High Middle Ages into the Early Modern World?

Is there any reason to believe that, apart from Pompeii/Herculaneum, there are other ancient cities that were very quickly buried by a natural disaster?

So, I know that there were a lot of products created in Germany, but what about other countries? What about songs, books, picture books, etc.?

I searched the sub "first state to recognize Ireland" and got nothing. Who first recognized Ireland, and what were their reasons?

I've done some reading of Roman history and I know -- or rather, I think I know a little -- about the Gracchi brothers and their proposed land reforms for the landless poor and eventual assassinations. But were those events connected to the Social War and/or the eventual fall of the Republic?

I saw a historically themed twitter account mention that questions of extending citizenship were also part of the discussion and divisions that led to the Social War. Is that true? If so, to what extent did those factors play into the Social War and eventual transition from Republic to Principate/Empire?

My apologies if the above is all over the place, I guess I'd just condense this into the title and ask what role questions of citizenship played in the Social War and the eventual "fall" of the Republic.

Thanks!

Art that the Greeks and Romans would have found ugly/distasteful?

If you're an American Airman or sailor today and you log into your computer and see an automated email stating something like, "Congratulations, you have been selected for an assignment to Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam," you're probably printing it out and framing it somewhere everyone can see. And you're definitely rubbing people's faces in it.

But if it's 1762 and you find out you're going to the French or Dutch Guyana, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Haiti, etc, how do you feel (most likely)? What was the attitude at the time regarding these places, which would today be considered prime assignments?

On top of that how did the process work? Could your family come with you? Did entire battalions go together? What was the length of time you'd be there?

I know some of these answers are going to depend on which country you're from or the exact time period involved. Just looking for a rough idea. Thanks.

.

Or is this a popular misconception?

In England, Westminster Abbey is where royal coronations and weddings are carried out and is known as a "Royal Particular" church, which is not part of a diocese but directly accountable to the crown. It has taken on the role of being the church where many of the royal acts of state including the coronation ceremonies of the sovereign.

Meanwhile, Canterbury has long been the seat of the Archbishop of Canterbury, who currently is the head of the Anglican Church. During the times when England was loyal to Rome, the Archbishop was at times a Cardinal, as well as a member of the Kings council, in roles as varied as treasurer and Lord Chancellor. Their power and authority gave great sway and was the seat of such notable men as Thomas Beckett, Thomas Cranmer, and Reginald Pole.

Is there any particular reason why Westminster is the church most used for royal functions instead of Canterbury, considering it's historical legacy as the seat of religious authority?
Is it merely because it's 70 miles away and Westminster is right in the city of London?

And if not, why not?

My history major friend and I have conflicting book about how descendants of Jews heritage were identified.

Main Question: IF 1/4 of person A's grandparents was Jewish, would A have been seen as a Jew?

I've been reading Thomas R Martin's Ancient Rome, in which he claims that the designation of republic and empire is an anachronism, since Romans, throughout their history, never stopped referring to Rome as a Republic.

However, it seems like Romans would likely still have noticed a pretty drastic shift in power structure, and there were movements to restore the system of the republic (Caesar's assassination, I would assume more in the post empire period), which would Imply they perceived the republic and empire as two distinct time periods.

To add some more specific questions:

• Did they perceive the republic and empire as two distinct time periods?

• If they did, would they have put the division earlier (due to the chaos of the late republic) or later (due to Augustus's principate)?

• Was there any support for re-establishing the republican system later on in the empire (under the five good emperors for example)? This was portrayed in the movie Gladiator.

• Under Augustus's principate, to what extent would the average Roman have been aware that the republic was effectively over?

I know that's a lot of questions to throw out there at once, but i find the period quite fascinating and would be very grateful for any answers at all.

I'd love this question to be open ended, but to further clarify what I'm getting at let's say we look at Alaric's army in 410 and Charles Martell's in 732. How different are these armies? Have any major innovations been made in the 300 yeas between the two?

So, as an American-Irish student, 'Celtic' cultures (More specifically the Irish culture, La Tene, and later) have always interested me, and after various readings, audio lectures, and subreddit searches over the past year, or two, I've been pondering the pan-Celtic identity, and its place historically. In my case, it was my introduction, and is so commonplace, that it's hard for me to completely disagree with, but various Celticists (Most notably Barry Cunliffe), have gotten me questioning it. So, I was hoping to spark an impartial discussion as to the history, and reasoning behind the pan-Celtic identity, in the hope to gather as much info on this debate together, and make the question simpler (Or perhaps more complex) to answer.

Was this area later settled by migrants from Jerusalem and/or Judea or were were they converted at some point "between the testaments" by the Hasmoneans or some other group? I've never been able to find a good explanation for this in the Bible or in other sources.

Did intelligence services from any of the fighting nations of the Second World War ever manage to capture or otherwise obtain/find out the military doctrines that their opponents were fighting with?