In another sub, some people were discussing why kids can't just sign up for college classes, but instead must go through the admissions process. That got me thinking what admissions were like historically.

Anyone with insight into other time periods or countries is welcome to chime in.

I searched the FAQS and search this sub in general and found nothing. If there some info previously stated here, I would appreciate a link and apologize for asking this.

I remember reading an article about the theory that the Titans were most likely the gods of a nearby people that when conquered had their pantheon absorbed into Greek Mythology. If this were the case, one could assume it was similar for the Giants or even the Vanir God [in Norse Mythology]. There's stories about the great battles between the Aesir and the Vanir or Giants.

So my question is, is there any evidence of this? Is this assumed by most academics? Can you point me towards some resources on this?

Thanks, I love this sub and you folks are amazing.

Edit: forgot stuff

Did any leading Nazi refer to themselves as a Fascist

This question came to me after reading a few threads on how we can track the ages through fashion.

The Shinsengumi was a ruthless militia. They were the enemy of the Meiji revolutionaries and fought on to the very end, long after the Shogun surrendered. They killed more of their own members than revolutionaries during their stint patrolling the streets of Kyoto, and caused quite some disturbance during that time.

So why are they usually given a heroic treatment?

The fatal duel took place on the Weehawken dueling grounds, across the river from Manhattan, the same place where Hamilton's son had been killed mere years prior. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.)

Burr was known to be an excellent marksman, but Hamilton both (1) made known that he intended to miss the first shot, and (2) took every step to provoke Burr, from wearing his glasses to sighting the pistol before the duel.

These seem like contradictory acts -- either Hamilton intended to throw away his shot, or he wanted to make sure he had the best chance of firing an accurate shot.

One theory reconciles all these intentional acts: Hamilton intended to martyr himself on the spot where his son was killed.

He told friends that he had no intention to kill Burr to preserve his own legacy. He feigned concern for his own aim so Burr would take a well-aimed shot himself. And he picked a meaningful place to die.

Is there any merit to this theory, or any flaw in my assumptions? (For example, if there was no other dueling ground, the choice of Weehawken becomes less obviously intentional.)

WWI seems to be a bloodbath with little regard for human life from at least a few staff Commanding officers. With more than 10 000 per day in average, countless assault and multiples cases of mutiny, is there any documented case of punitive assault ordered to a military units as a punishment for their behavior (mutiny, fraternization, pacifism, socialism ...)?

I'm teaching 10th grade history and the text keeps saying 'the industrial revolution created the middle class'.

I understand prosperity is relative. Comfortable people will still get terminal diseases, but the text really doesn't qualify with details of the actual experiences of the middle class.

When did a majority of the population enjoy their needs being met? What was their relative experience?

I am doing a project on Pegasus bridge and Point du Hoc however I am finding it difficult finding reliable sources like newspapers, speeches or first hand accounts. Can anyone help me out or give some recommendations.

After all, the Ghaznavids were Sunni and ruled pretty much the same general area as the Seljuks for quite some time but never got asked to save the Caliphate from the Buyids? What made the Seljuks seem like a better prospect for rescuing Sunnism to the Caliph?

I'm attending a Model UN conference next week wherein I will be a member of a Hannibalic War committee. My delegate is a member of the Fulvii family and the committee begins in 239 BC. My questions to consider are these:

1. Should Rome accept the island of Sardinia into the Republic? a. What would the repercussions of Roman territorial expansion in the region be? b. How would Carthage react to the incorporation of Sardinia into the Republic?

2. What should be done about the war in Carthage; should Rome intervene? a. Would intervention be a stabilizing or destabilizing force given the regional geopolitical situation? b. What is Rome’s rule in future regional conflicts?

I don't expect you to answer these questions precisely at all but I am more looking for some background on what sort of political stance the Fulvii family would've been inclined towards. Any help would be hugely appreciated! Thanks!

I know right? It's a Tarantino film; they're not meant to be realistic. But seriously, it approached slavery as a morally gray area that sounds very plausible to how society functioned over 150 years ago. I'll break this down to 5 questions.....

• 'Mandingo fights' were pure fiction right? Or could something like that have existed, in more underground fashion if there were rumors?

• House slaves were real? They never worked in the fields?

• Were there really black 'socialites' who worked (or really just dined with) in the inner circles with their white owners in the southern states?

• Did a state where slavery was still legal recognise that a former slave was free (given that former slave had documentation to prove it)? And on that note: did the slave states even provide documents showing a black person was a free man?

• Was there even such a thing as a black slaver in the States?

I realize that Cortes might not have burned them intentionally on arrival in Mexico. I'm just curious about how boat repairs would have happened on long expeditions and if boat building was common knowledge. Would a ship full of soldiers have been able to build a ship from local materials and sail back to Spain?

Settle an argument, what weapon killed more in total?

Hi r/askhistorians can someone help me in understanding how different cultures used different bows, for instance Longbow used by the British and Flatbow by the Native Americans. Why were these types more effective in certain places and not the others? It would help if someone could tell me about the bow and arrows used in medieval ages in the Asian countries.