I've heard this story about Alexander before (though I don't know whose history is responsible for this claim). So let's say this is true. We can trust whatever ancient historian claimed Alexander loved Homer so much and felt such a personal connection to the story that he slept with it by his side every night.

Where would he get this book? Would it be a "book" as we imagine it today, with pages and a spine and binding? If not, what form would it take? How does a private individual acquire a copy of a book in the first place in the 4th century BCE? Would he buy a pre-existing copy from someone? Hire someone to make a new one? Something completely different?

It's my understanding that the Iliad was an extremely important and popular work to a lot of people in Classical Greece, so I figure someone has to be making copies. But who? Is book copying a full time profession or something people do to pass the hours or something else entirely?

So as you can tell I'm not so much wondering about Alexander in particular as I am wondering how a book that was apparently so popular and beloved was reproduced in the Ancient Greek world. Though if anyone has any information on Alexander's relation to the text, or how people have interpreted this relationship, or how he would go about getting a physical copy in the first place, I would love to know!

I have read many articles that state that one of the problems that plagued armies throughout history was the lack of regular pay, and this got me to wonder about the Romans. Were they paid irregularly and was it dependant on their battlefield success? Were there any instances of mutinies or disloyalty from lack of pay? Any answers are appreciated! Thanks a lot!

[deleted]

I was scanning a bit about him, but it seems like there's a lot of myths, propaganda, and snark concerning him and his actions as a ruler.

In the context of his time, was he particularly brutal compared to his contemporaries? Are some of the stories pure propaganda due to how he treated the boyars? How effective was he as a ruler and leader?

As I understand it, history tries to avoid assigning any kind of hero/villain status to a figure, so is there a historical consensus on the kind of person Vlad was and what's the truth about his brutality?

I've come across this claim in several places, from readings in my undergrad about "topsy turvy" holiday traditions like Carnivale, to more popularly oriented documentaries like the Christmas special of Tudor Monastery Farm. They argue that yearly traditions where the lowly were briefly elevated in status and expected to act irreverant were medieval society's way of safely releasing a little bit of the socio-economic tension that was present the other days of the year.

The thing is, I don't know of any medieval people themselves claiming this, and I know that the study of the premodrn past is often fraught with incorrect conclusions that draw on our modern biases, so I'm wondering whether there are any medieval people who described these practices like we do, or how we have come to this "safety valve" conclusion an dhow we can be sure this conclusion isn't colored by modern biases?

Wikipedia tells me that even when Venice was still an independent republic the Venetians were already writing in Tuscan Italian rather than in Venetian. Why did they start doing that? When did it happen? Did they write in Italian for some purposes and Venetian for others?

Except from the obvious downfalls- lack of women's rights, racist issues and all of that- was it actually a good time to live overall as a white straight man? Or was it a lot worse than we think?

There is equatorial guinea, guyana, guinea, papua new guinea and I think I may have missed another.

How did parliament gain so much power it could raise armies and declare war on the king? When the nobility held the majority of power how did parliament make them hand power to non nobles.

Edit: To clarify, I'm asking how exactly the lower nobility/non nobility managed to force the king to give them enough political to form parliament and eventually compete with the king when at the beginning all the power was held by the king and higher nobles. Surely the king and nobility wanted to retain power so how did parliament force the nobility to acknowledge them? To my knowledge a lot of times when kings or nobility have their power occur violently, I'm not sure how it happened peacefully in the UK.

If providing the context helps, I'm organizing a Model UN conference here in Malaysia, and I'm trying to set up a special historical council set during the Taiping Rebellion. The premise is that delegates will be playing characters from the Imperial court, representatives from the provinces of China, as well as foreign dignitaries from Europe and the USA, in an attempt to respond to the threat of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom.

The issue is that I'm kind of stuck on good, in-depth sources. Wikipedia's been good so far but I'm not sure where to look for information about how the Qing Imperial government worked at the time, what kind of positions were held in the court, etc.

Apart from that, I need information about the Taiping Army's military, what battles they engaged in, and so on.

Thanks very much, and I'm sorry in advance if this is the wrong sort of question! I'm just not sure who else to ask.

Was it for the simple reason that London was a more important city, and England a larger, more populous kingdom, or were there other political considerations (such as assuring English nobility that he didn't intend England to be a Scottish vassal)? Was consideration ever given to ruling both kingdoms from Scotland? Was there Scotch push back to the move, considering the centuries of animosity?

Hi there l, I am a BBA student currently in my final year. I have decided that I am not going to pursue MBA after this but has instead decided to go for another course. I am thinking about majoring in History since It is a field of interest for me. Should I opt for a Masters degree in History after BBA? Would there be any hurdles? Another thing is about jobs. I am not interested in being a teacher. What other job opportunities does people with a masters degree or PhD in history have?