The phalanx to me seems like an extremely good fighting technique, especially against opponents who do not have weapons with such a long reach, so why did the fall out of use?

In many parts of the world the "modern" cities were built upon the old cities meaning that some of the richest areas for excavation and research were within reasonable distance from "modern" cities. Hundreds and thousands of years of cities built on top of or expanding and retreating over the same area. In fact it seems like every year you read about some construction company hitting an old aqueduct or a graveyard or something else.

It seems the same from Europe to the Middle East to China. Then I look at major sites in South America and it seems that they're nowhere near any modern cities. These were big, thriving cities and apart from a couple that may have been abandoned for various reasons there should be some amount of them that were continuously occupied and built over. Is that just my perception or is there something I'm missing?

Credit to /u/TheShowIsNotTheShow for for suggesting this topic almost 5 months ago. Please excuse the delay.

The concept of agency, peoples ability to make decisions and shape outcomes, is tremendously important to the study of history. Most if not all works of historical scholarship assume that humans have an ability to shape their environment, not that human's actions are solely determined by their environment or the society they live in.

Structure, the concept that a person's identity, their gender, class, race, religion, or social norms and taboos influence or limit what choices can be made. Thus, social structures, or habitat, or other factors could result in different scope of agency for a person from an elite background compared with someone from a subaltern background. Or an elite from one society compared to one from another society, etc.

In sociology, there is an ongoing debate whether Agency or Structure are primary in shaping human behavior. How do the various schools of historiography handle this debate, and what side do they fall on?

How do concepts of Structure and Agency interact with the study of the subaltern?

Since many of the founders like Washington and Jefferson were from Virginia and owned slaves did the Confederacy try and co-opt them into their legacy or did they try and distance themselves from all ties to the U.S. Government? Thanks!

Since the title had to be translated, why choose 'Emperor'?

Was there any chance that a regular foot soldier that was constantly deployed on the front lines survive through the entire war?

[deleted]

I saw this question posted once before, but it didn't get a lot of attention and the answers were muddled by a single poster who repeatedly cited a minority view that the Proto-Indo-European pantheon was not genetically (linguistically) inherited with no other answers.

I'm interested in how they responded to this change, especially when it coincided with such an interesting time in Jewish history (the destruction of the Temple and the solidification of the diaspora). Were there any significant developments, theological, legal, or otherwise when the communities Jews found themselves in transformed into Christians, who may not be warm to Judaism, but may be distinguished from general pagans?

I suspect that dense forests complicated early agriculture. Also, Diamond notes the importance of domesticable beasts of burden. Were there other impeding factors?

I've recently gotten interested in the monarchies of the Americas and I noticed that after leaving Spain, Mexico was a monarchy under an emperor for a while. When the French returned the monarchy, they revived the title of Emperor. What were the reasons for using that term instead of the more common King/Kingdom?

For example, 16th century Vietnam saw the growth of a Catholic minority thanks to Portugese and later French monks. How was communication established between the two groups with no common language between them?

My source is The Modern Library's The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin.

The specific line is sourced within the book to:

Volume 1, The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin, The Journal of John Woolman, and Fruits of Solitude - The Harvard Classics 1909 by PF Collier & Son

I've been listening to Mike Duncan's Revolution podcast and he mentions that during the 1798 rebellion the two groups worked together against the British. How did Catholics and Protestants in Ireland become such enemies later?

Hoping this is the right subreddit for this question, but I was in a discussion with someone regarding this topic, and was hoping to get a somewhat professional opinion.

The person I was debating was claiming the a standing army is constitutional due to the article allowing congress to maintain and support an army. I argued that the clause only allows for congress to appropriate funds for this for a period of no longer than two years.

He insists that that provision only means that the appropriation has to be renewed every two years, but to me, the only way that makes sense is to add words to the line in question.

Can someone with more knowledge than I give an opinion on the matter?

Edit: For clarity, I'm wondering about the historical implications here. How it relates to the understanding of the constitution and the framers intent. From my reading, it seems pretty clear that the founders were opposed to a standing army, and therefore, it doesn't make any logical sense to me to read this clause as the person I am debating does. It leads me to believe that our founders would not be too happy with our past 50+ years of military policy.

We have already had some questions on this topic, but mine concerns the philosophy espoused by non-canon sources. I am interested in any specific example of why early Christian leaders may have thought an excluded text was incompatible with the 'message' of the New Testament (whatever that is), so please don't feel constrained by the title.