I was taught when I was younger that Wilson and the Allies' stance of self-determination after WWI was a good idea because its goal was to allow minority groups a freedom and political voice that they couldn't have had in larger empires. However, my current history professor called Wilson "the worst bigot to ever serve as President" and said that Wilson advocated self-determination because he thought different ethnic groups couldn't and shouldn't live together.

This has made me curious as to what most historians believe about this issue. Does what my history professor said have some merit or is he misguided?

I'm not certain this is the best place to ask this question, but I've been reading Unbroken by Laura Hillenbrand. In the story it talks about how pilots were often eaten by the sharks in the ocean. It also talks about how Louie and his surviving crew even had to hit sharks in the nose with their oars because they continually attempted to jump into their raft.

As I understand it, it was fairly common to see adoptions in Roman families (Caesar with Augustus and him with Tiberius), but when and why did this practice fall out of favor to only having biological children succeed?

I know they were not treated well upon returning home. Did that play a role?

With this Hitler micro-penis story that just came out, it seems like Hitler's manhood is no small topic. Are there any other similar historical figures in this regard, where their junk has been put under similar scrutiny? Are there historical penis records for anyone else?

Do we know what Kennedy was packing? Lincoln? FDR? Is there any value in this sort of research? Why bother?

For example, Mozart, Schubert, Tchaikovsky, and Chopin.

I'm playing the Napoleon Total war finally, and saw there was as square formation. I looked it up to see if it was real and it was. It seems really in-effective because it would be easy to kill several people at once

Hey friends I just ordered Eusebius's church history. Can someone tell me what the other earliest church histories are that are still preserved and I can buy? Thanks! :D

[deleted]

What exactly did "Germany" and "Italy" mean before the German and Italian states existed? In other words, suppose I went back in time to 1800 (before either state existed). What would people think if I told them I was taking a trip to Germany or Italy? Or if I told them I was an Italian or a German?

Conversely, would anyone tell me they're taking a trip to Germany or Italy? Would they tell me they're an Italian or German? Or would they refer to some other geographical region?

Did these terms even exist? Did they denote a specific region? Was it more a cultural/ethnic concept?

I want to educate myself of the historiography of slavery in the Southern United States. So far on my list of authors are U. B. Phillips, Eugene Genovese, and Alan Taylor. Who else has contributed significantly to the field?

I find it strange that African slavery was so prominent in places east of Africa, but yet today there area no populations that are of African ancestry in these places like their are in the Americas. Why is this?

It seems they were content to colonize this region only. Surely they contemplated the possibility of more fertile lands to the south with larger populations ripe for raiding and trading.

According to wikipedia (sorry) the 1st army was 4 divisions, pattons 3rd army had 19 divisions, the 9th army had 16 and the 15th army had 9. Plus the corps sizes are all over the place. I was wondering why this was the case?

My understand, which could be very wrong, is with the British and Canadians generally 2 divisions make a corps, 2 corps make an army, and 2 armies make an army group.

I'd also be interested in seeing a timeline of world maps from the ancient egyptians or ancient romans in what they thought the world looked like, all the way to the modern era (world war 1).

What was it like? I know of one account where he lost his cool with General Charles Lee at the Battle of Monmouth in New Jersey, but was this typical or a result of the stress of battle and ridiculously hot and humid weather?

Was he ambitious? Conniving? Charitable? I feel like I know a lot more about Lincoln than Washington. Is there a reason his demeanor is less famous than Lincoln's?

[deleted]

It is my observation that liberty is considered highly valuable and highly important in western politics today and historically. I can pull out any number of quotes from the american revolution to demonstrates how people regarded liberty highly, but I can say we have comments from the trial of king Charles I saying "For the people. And truly I desire their Liberty and Freedom as much as any Body whomsoever. But I must tell you, That their Liberty and Freedom, consists in having of Government; those Laws, by which their Life and their gGods may be most their own. It is not for having share in government (Sir) that [9/10] is nothing pertaining to them." So it seems that even going back to the 17th century, liberty becomes a political value. I can say that liberty was not a peculiar concern of more ancient writers such as Plato, Aristotle, and Augustine, at least in my study of them.

Why the shift in attitude? Is there a reason liberty came to be valued so highly? I do not necessarily wish to go into historiography, but I do want to know if historians have traced when and where political rhetoric about freedom and libery became commonplace.

I've never heard of what happened to the culture after the fall of Rome and the western half.

I know afterwards a eastern half emperor retook Rome by sending troops thru the aqueducts and the inhabitants of Rome were happy but none of the books or articles I've read about Rome has ever really discussed the culture going away.

Is Italian considered Roman? I wouldn't think it is it seems very different.

[deleted]