[deleted]

I was quite surprised when my 13yr old daughter came home with a permission slip stating that her social studies / American history class would be watching Mel Gibson's The Patriot (2000) because it shows many important aspects of this historical event, including "the advantage of guerilla warefare and tactics over conventional European fighting, the reluctance of 1/3 of the population to join the rebellion, and the importance of battles at Charleston and Yorktown."

I remember seeing this movie and the only thing I really remember about it is the violence (hence the permission slip). Googling around shows it appearing on many "Historically Misleading Movies" lists, but I thought I'd ask the experts. I'm ok with her seeing the movie, but what I'd really like is for her to understand the actual truth so she's not left at the mercy of the teacher to tell her which parts of the movie are examples of what really happened.

Can someone help us identify parts of the movie that are farthest from what actually happened?

Hi,

I am an architecture student working with a project investigating walking in the context of London.

I recently found out the gallery was originally a room for exercise. I was surprised by this, and even more intrigued when I looked at Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary online and find the following definition of gallery: 1. In architecture, a covered part of a building, commonly in the wings, used as an ambulatory or place for walking.

I am now curious what role walking has had through English (and more specifically London's) history, whether it's for leisure, religion, politics etc. Further, what areas/spaces/rooms have been used for it? I guess the first spaces designed for some form of passage must have been religious? I don't really now where to start looking, as I am no historian, nor English.

Thanks for any answers!

For example, was there a distinct Ancient Egyptian ethnicity that didn't survive?

Edit: added the word "ancient" above.

To elaborate slightly on the question:

Many would argue that the ability to charge usury (or interest) on loans is instrumental to a thriving financial/banking sector. As Jews in many locations were the only ones legally able to charge interest in Medieval times, I would wager that the expulsion of Jews would result in economic downturn as the moneylenders/bearers of the financial sector were forced to leave, and there was no one to really take their place as canonical law forbade usury. Is there any historical support for this loose theory of mine?

So the question is why did Eisenhower feel the need to remove the democratically elected leader of Guatemala in 1954? Was it McCarthyism, the influence of the United Fruit Company or something completely different? Would really appreciate an answer! Thanks.

1. What was life typically like for openly gay and lesbian people in America from the 1900s to the 1930s? 2)Where some places in America better to live as a homosexual than others? 3)Was being openly gay a life threatening decision or just social isolating? 4)Was there a gay "community" of sorts back then as there is now? 5)Where m/m and f/f partners able to live together by passing under the guise of roommates/friends or were they easily suspected?
2. What was the common view towards homosexual people?

Ever Since reading Sienkiewicz's Trilogy I have been in love with the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth. Unfortunately (for me at least) most of the books on Polish history I can find are either general overviews, or focused on WW1, WW2, The Holocaust, Occupation, and so on. There seems to be relatively little that is actively focused before that.

I guess what I'm really looking for is a Historical Companion to the Trilogy, but I doubt something so targeted exists, so - can anyone recommend any books discussing or narrating the the history of the Commonwealth? I'm particularly interested books focused on military or political history, as I find its political system particularly interesting (liberum veto!)

There are two books relevent that I have been able to find

• After the Deluge: Poland-Lithuania and the Second northern War, 1655-1660 by Robert Frost (which I am looking forward to reading)
• Memoirs of the Polish Baroque, the writings of Jan Chryzostom Pasek, A Squire of the Commonwealth of Poland and Lithuania (which I thoroughly enjoyed, I have the Leach translation)

I would also love books focused on, for example, the Wars and battles involving Poland at the time more generally (that is, not just focused on Poland), or earlier periods of Polish history. I'm comfortable reading books written for an academic audience. As a side note, if anyone knows any documentaries on the same themes, they would also be great!

Can somebody enlighten me on how the regulations were like back then? Nowadays you probably can't even carry your grandfather's sidearm into battle with you much less a longbow.

Could officers just carry whatever the hell they wanted to? If I was a British WW2 captain, hypothetically can I bring a sword alongside my pistol into battle and stab Germans with it?

I had never heard of Alcibiades until I started reading Greek philosophy and even then he is only mentioned in passing.

This man who I think qualifies as the most interesting in history (from what I've read at least) seems to be cast as a traitor.

For one he is known to have saved Socrates in combat, is in Plato's Symposium, is a drunkard and genius (Tyrion?), sleeps with a Spartan Queen pissing off the Spartans, and is a major player in the Peloponnesian War: accused of defacing religious symbols in Athens just prior to the Syracuse campaign, pulled from the soon to be decimated Syracuse campaign, eventually killed by the Spartans in Asia Minor just before Athens major defeat at the Hellespont (due to oversight on Athens part), of which he actually commented on the events of just prior to it going down (unless that's just historical creative license). None of this mentioning his attempted comeback dealings on the island of Samos. This guy was truly epic. He died in his prime, unexpected (to him at least).

Yet, watching 300 we are to believe Themistocles a hero who eventually is ostracized and defected to Persia?

History is more complex than we initially give it credit for. Athens was vitriolic no, their ostracism is a complex mess of 'One minute your 'general', next your an outcast'? Power struggle 101.

My question is, why isn't Alcibiades more famous? Is it because of his questionable character? He seems to have 'Breaking Bad' written all over him.

Is he noteworthy? Is he not one of the most dynamic important character's in Greek history?

Question as above.

My US History teacher and textbook argue that the South has the superior military officership with Lee, among other people.

I imagine both the North and South knew their strengths and weaknesses, whether it be population, industry, or fighting a defensive war.

Did the South believe they had better military leadership, or is that something historical scholarship made fact?

In the video game Rome: Total War the Urban Cohort are the most potent military unit the roman army has to offer, even surpassing the Praetorian Cohort in combat prowess. I have tried to research them but the furthest I get is a fairly bare wikipedia article stating that they were more of a police force than a elite combat unit. My question is 2 fold; were the Urban's more like the game or the wikipedia article and what was their function in that role?

I've always been curious, because my father always told me it was complete nonsense and said that Cambodia, Vietnam, and China all going to war with each other after they became "Communist" was a perfect example of it being complete nonsense because the people who came up with the theory didn't take into the account the history of the region and various ethnic and national tensions that stretched back through history. Is he right about that?