And if there are then how? From what I understand Assyria fell around 612 BC (at least according to wikipedia) and it just seems absurd that anyone would claim to be Assyrian after so long, it would be like calling yourself an Akkadian.

I have two questions here:

1. Why did Singapore join the Federation of Malaysia? I'm trying to understand the specific reasons as well as the context in which this happened. I haven't been able to find much other than Singapore didn't have any natural resources and the joining the Federation made sense economically(not sure if this is correct).

2. Why did Singapore secede from Malaysia? From my limited understanding of the event, it had to do with differences in policies of the two.

If someone could elaborate on the above questions it would be appreciated.

Was there an increase in racism against asians? Did Japanese internment prevent that? How was their involvement perceived on a political level? Did they see China as just a Soviet lackey?

Today, I heard a pop song from france and it just sounded like a pop song from here, except in french, however any song today I here in spanish seems to be affect a 'spanish' sound whether it's emulating the spanish guitar or something else. For that matter why is the spanish guitar so distinct?

Hello everyone,

Popular British mythos depicts "the thin red line" where a well trained British infantry regiment stands in 2 rank deep lines and defeats a much larger French column made up of untrained conscripts during the Napoleonic wars.

I was wondering how much of this was true, I know that many of the allied units fought in four ranks at Waterloo due to fear of the French cavalry and the overall compactness of the battlefield. But I have been hearing from unofficial sources that the "line vs column" idea is a oversimplification of how it actually was, but I have not yet gotten any definative reply on this matter.

So what gives?

Pope Urban II's speech to rally support had a very strong religious call, but what were the crusaders main motivations for joining?

There are numerous examples of the origin story of the superhero being exposed to radiation and gaining superpowers, did these idea's only arise at the birth of the nuclear age?

I have seen this on multiple posts, allegedly Ottoman forces conquered the city because of some gate left open. Is there any truth in this? I am a Turk from Istanbul and kind of a history fan but never heard this theory before.

I'm reading a Chinese textbook on British culture and history at the moment, as I'm teaching a class on it at my (Chinese) university next semester. The book is, frankly, full of rather dubious stuff (Ireland has a population of 520 million, Wales has a population of 290,000) though it has plenty of reasonable stuff too. Anyway, I just got to a chapter on women in British culture, and it begins off by talking about famous pre-Roman British warrior-queens. Besides Boadicea, it lists; Camilla, Queen of Latium in the 13th century BC; Tomyris, a Celtic Queen mentioned by Herodatus as killing Cyrus the Great; Queen Eire and Queen Scota, for whom Ireland and Scotland are named. Martia Proba, a Queen who invented common law.

Now, I've checked on wikipedia, and it tells me Tomyris was an Iranian Queen; was there every some pseudo-history that claimed she was British which the Chinese writers have misunderstood? And I've never heard of most of the rest. Wikipedia tells me that Martia Proba is a character from Geoffrey of Monmouth's history, is that where the rest are from? I mean, I'm assuming this is all rubbish, I just wondered why the authors might have thought it was real history. Also... was there ever a queen called Camilla of Latium? I believe Latium is a province in Italy, north of Rome, so I wondered if that's a real person, just one who had nothing to do with Britain.

I hope my questions fit this subreddit. I am a physicist and as such I know extremely well scientific method and workings of physics as a science. I'm not historian in any way, but I've always been interested in history and now, because I plan to do my own research in the topic, I want to understand better how history is conducted and what are differences between scientific and historical methods.

1. To what degree can we talk about consensus in the field? For example I don't think that anyone would argue that Roman Empire (as political structure) fell, but some would argue different dates. So in this example is there consensus that Roman Empire fell, or using this word in historical context is too dangerous? How about situation, where 99% of historians agree on certain topic with 1% looking only for fame and controversy?

2. What are best ways to both avoid one's and recognize other's bias? History seems to be (for me) more as much about cold fact as it is about personal interpretation of given information. Thus even if someone tries to be objective, things like religion, upbringing and peers' opinion will always, even if subconsciously, affect the interpretation. Is in this context knowledge on the author important to get full picture from their book/article/ect. ?

3. How does peer review process work for historians? For example someone comes out with theory, that Western Rome fell because pigs were being born with shorter tail and he wants to publish it in some journal. He's done some research of course and has serious archaeological evidence. How does he prove his theory enough to be published, even if it sounds absurd? And if he has no evidence but circumstantial one, could such a conjuncture be published as well? What are the standards for journals?

I'm sorry if those questions are stupid as I'm sure those are obvious things for most of you, but I could really use some context in the matter.

I know that in 146 BC the Third Punic War ended with the Romans sacking Carthage, according to legend destroying the city and sewing the earth with salt so nothing could ever grow there again. However I also have heard that it returned as a city by the time of the Imperial era. How did this happen? Was the story about Rome razing the city false? Did some new people come in, rebuild on the same site, and use the same city name? Was a different city nearby renamed Carthage?

For example, the "Evening News" on TV.

Following the successful end of a conflict, how would soldiers levied from the general population go about returning home? Was this process typically disorganized, or was there formal ceremony behind the dissolution?

It just seems like there's little reason for Rome to have used the Eagle over the Wolf as its standard.

Roman soldiers or vikings, any old times soldiers really. In movies actors are always ripped, were they really like that?

[deleted]

The Constitution does not specify how electors are chosen. In early presidential elections, how were the electors chosen? Did it vary by state? When did the process become standardized?