I was thinking about a quote in the shower but I couldn't remember if it was Socrates or Archimedes who said it. Which reminded me of a story my Latin teacher told me in high school. She said that Archimedes was killed by a roman soldier while drawing a circle on the ground. According to her, Archimedes told the soldier to move out of his way so he could continue drawing his circle and was promptly run through.

Is there any truth to this?

Sorry if this violates the rules, I read them and as far as I can tell it does not. Although it is a fairly specific question.

I'm sure most folks at one point have pointed out to a teacher that "that all men are created equal" had a few flaws to it (slaves, women, the poor...), and often there's an argument about "well, that was normal in their day."

But the further back in history we go, more and more things look "bad," and I wonder how you as historians would suggest we thinking about and digest stories from the past. Should we consider Khan a bad person because he killed so many people? Should we consider the Egyptians bad because they held slaves? Was Jefferson good even though held slaves? Were the plantation owners of the 1860s worse for owning / punishing slaves than the Egyptians or the Romans?

I'm not as interested in a retort to a specific historical event/person, but rather how would you all advise students of history to think about historical figures. Or, what are some tips to help us see them correctly?

Specifically, before the tercio dominated the battlefield. Long story short, I'm working on a group of short fantasy stories, and I'm more or less obsessed with historical 'accuracy' so to speak. I love the middle ages (and know a great deal about them) and also love the era of pike and shot. Let's give this a window of roughly 1500/1540

Basically, I was curious about

A: to what extent did the middling nobility, like the counts, have influence?, both political and military? What military roles did they play?

B: To what extent did heavy cavalry still play a role on the field to any great degree? How about knights, as in, the mounted nobility?

C: What would your average nobleman wear, as opposed to an infantryman

D: How did pike formations function? Was it like the Tercio yet, or less organized than all of that?

E: Where did the shot fit in? Was it used on the wings, like in the tercio, or separate or what?

F: How about swordsmen? Generally how was hand to hand combat carried out, from both a tactical, and strategic point of view?

Separate: What did the people do for fun? I know tournaments were commonplace in the middle ages, but I get the feeling they'd fallen a bit out of favor since the close of the hundred years war.

I've heard that in 2007 Greece proper reached its highest population number, made me wonder what the population of Greece has been through the ages.

In particular I'm curious about what % of the world population was in Greece (or Greek) in the ancient world (let say 500 b.c.)

The Wikipedia article notes that this was the case for many decades, but doesn't explain why. It also says that Shannon was a convenient place to refuel on flights between Europe and the US. But once airliners got long enough ranges to be able to fly directly to Dublin Airport, why weren't they permitted to do so until very recently?

When does it first begin to happen and why?

Like, my own (Arabic) name could be translated into something like Lion of Truth, but I've never seen it ever done for any group of people other than Native Americans. If the intent was to caricature Native Americans as primitive, why does it seem only restricted to them as opposed to other groups?

I know Battleships could lob a shell over 20 miles, but how accurate was that and did they even engage targets at that range?

Rome was one of the most influential empires in history. But in the beging, when Rome was a small Kingdom what factors allowed Rome to grow so much to become so powerful. I mean, Rome faced many tribes and other factions, but none (except for Carthage) posed any thread to Rome. Why?

It seems that most of the great powers like Macedon, Athens, Sparta, Rome and Persia originated in regions with a lot of hills or mountains (With Egypt being the exception to this). Did this specific geography contribute to the rise of these great powers, or was this simply a coincidence?

After few decades of islam's appearance, christians lost half their lands and many of their brothers in faith in those lands converted en masse to islam. I think the conversion was faster in north africa and the iberian peninsula. How did christians react to this? how did they rationalize it? I heard conversion in spain reached 80% by the time of the reconquita, how did they explain such huge numbers? Did they care? or did they ignore it? I think the same can be asked about zoroastrian response to islam. I'm sorry if I'm breaking any rules or if the theme of the week means that's the only subject. I'm new here

I asked this same question 5 days ago and didn't get answers. Not sure if repeats are allowed here but this question is really bugging me.

I am aware that the Irish Sea often had Irish pirates raiding across the sea (that's how Saint Patrick first came to Ireland), but were there any accounts of Irish soldiers invading England, Wales or Scotland before the Norman conquest?

We always hear stories about lions which were led by donkeys, and we hear a lot about trench conditions where the enlisted and the low rank officers stayed. But what about colonels and beyond? Field Marshals? What would be their General Headquarters in battle, and how close would it be to the frontline? How safe was it from bombardment? Also, what was the case in Gallipoli? Did Army generals always stay in ships or occupied some islands or small portion of Turkish mainland?

Has this been something inherent in humans since the 'start' or were there certain societal and other precursors? For example, were hunter gatherers fighting for control of land (I would have thought not since they were not sedentary), or did it start after farming or only once cities and states came into being?

I was wondering how often colonies such as Jamestown and the Spanish colonies in the Caribbean could expect resupply and news from Europe. What sort of thing these ships would bring, what if anything the colonists sent back.

His theory that difference civilisation development around the world is due to geographical advantages and opportunities seems very logical and far from racist.

Most reviews of his book from historians seem to be more ad hominem than arguing the points scientifically, or refuting them with facts or sources. It just made me angry. Can someone please make light of the whole thing.