I was thinking the other day about how the typical young adult (20-25) now is nothing like the typical older adult (say 45-50).

Those born near the end of 20th century compared to the general Baby Boomer crowd seem to have a much better understanding of technology and also a larger openness to new ideas, standards, and principles. Has this always been true? Or was there a time where a child would typically grow up to be just like those who raised them?

It's definitely worth nothing that the exponential rise of technology has an impact, so I'm leaning towards it being a new social phenomenon. What do the experts say?

Today, most college graduates have probably taken at least one class in world literature that involved reading some secondary sources of literary criticism.

My question is when literary criticism as a specific discipline began in the Western world.

The only relevant source I can think of off the top of my head would be Aristotle's Poetics; however, I consider this to more properly considered a work of aesthetics that focuses on why certain pieces of art (like the Iliad) are successful as art, rather than literary criticism that attempts to interpret a specific piece of art. Of course, if I am mistaken on this front, please correct me.

Whenever i look into Roman history i always notice that the first Roman Emperors(Like Claudius or Augustus) are often depicted wearing laurels, but when i look at pictures of Byzantine Emperors(Like Justinian or Constantine IX) they are most likely depicted wearing golden crowns. What is the reason behind this difference?

So for this presentation I had to read about the origins of the concept of the constitution. The text says a political crisis (see title) lead athenian philosophers (Plato and Aristotle) to question if their current democracy (that was about 100 years old at the time) was a cause of this crisis or it was something else. The text goes through what they meant by said crisis (a shift to a more naval/economic focus) but doesn't really go into a lot of detail into why. I dod some research of my own (not for the presentation exactly, just mere curiosity) and this is what I found:

The greeks were again divided in their Poleis after they defeated the persians and Athens and Sparta fought for hegemony in the region.

Since thats what I found and nothing really too trustworthy I started to speculate, since this happened after the Peloponnesian War, maybe the Athenians didn't want to fight the Spartans in land an sought to become a Naval and Trade power to assert the control of the area.(??) basically my questions sum up:

1. How did this crisis affect the state of the democracy? was it factionalism or some other new factor of a merchant nation like immigrants or such? (related to 1.) Why would a shift to naval/trade focus affect the greek democracy? (read a bit of what Aristotle said, but didn't really get where he got his points from)
2. Did the athenians look to ally the other Poleis to defend themselves for the "now dominant" Spartans?
3. Was this in-fighting what weakened the Greek City-States allowing for Macedon to then control the region (Alexander's dad and all that)?.

I figure this may belong to the ask for help subreddit, but since I'm asking by my own curiosity and my assignment is about constitution and not ancient geopolitics this isn't technically homework. Please let me know if I'm on the right track or feel free to correct me since I'm not to versed in ancient history.

[deleted]

I am writing an essay for AccUSH about the Panic of 1873. I am trying to find stock-price records of railroad companies to include with stories from the press about their collapse, but simply cannot find a good source. Could anyone help? Thanks. (Originally posted on /r/history )

I'm currently taking a course on Europe in the High Middle Ages, and we briefly did an overview of the feudal ystem from the early Middle Ages. My professor emphasized how unpopulated the land was, and how small the villages were, along with how the peasants were very tied to the land. In that case, how did they find someone suitable to marry who was not closely related to them? I apologize if I'm making any incorrect assumptions about how sparsely populated the land was, or the size of the villages.

I've recently learned about Iowa Governor William Harding and his infamous Babel Proclamation on May 14, 1918 that outlawed foreign language usage in public places including religious sermons. This bill was enforced in Iowa by Harding and those who used foreign languages were charged with crimes. In 1918 Roman Catholics still had a Latin based mass. How did this law apply to them?

I was watching that Netflix documentary WWII in color, and it mentioned that after the Pear Harbor attacks, angry mobs attacked the Japanese embassy in Washington. How bad did that get? Did the American Army help protect the diplomats of Axis countries? What about all the other embassies. I find it hard to believe that the Allies would keep embassies staffed in Tokyo and Berlin while they're being bombed constantly. At the same time, all sides recognize the importance of diplomacy, so maybe they'd take special precaution to protect enemy embassy staff.

Any insight on this?

Also, would you guys recommend that documentary? I've really enjoyed it and it seems to put a lot of emphasis on being objective, but I'd trust your opinions on it.

I need some explaining, dunno about this myself.

There are hundreds of unrelated language families like Indo-European, Semitic, Turkish. Does this mean language as invent hundreds of times?

It seems odd that the Roman Empire could sustain numerous Legions throughout the known world two thousand years ago and were able to continually supply their men with equipment, pay and rations. Yet a thousand years later, during the middle ages, for the most part the Kingdoms of Europe didn't have any kind of sizeable standing army. Most soldiers during campaigns were levied peasants and farmers. Is there any particular reason for this? Ancient history isn't really my strong suit so any information would be appreciated

Were the works translated to contemporary language of the time, akin to how Shakespeare's works are updated to be commonly understood today?

To rephrase, what I mean is if it was possible for world powers to go to war while agreeing not to use a mutually destructive weapon, why isn't the same situation possible with nuclear weapons? Why didn't MAD work in WWII with chemical weapons, and why did it work after with nuclear weapons?

Has there been any Scientific Research into what % of history, as a whole, is false? If so, what would a single standard deviation be on the bell curve of false understandings of history?

Also, I am curious to what this sub reddits educated guess would be on a consensus as to a single % of incorrect history. I started this exercise in my mind and can't seem to come to terms with a single % of incorrect history.