I've heard some suggest when discussing a two state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that it already exists and that Jordan is a Palestinian State. Is there any legitimacy to this statement?

I'm curious what role the government played in their development. If it had an active role, did it knowingly help the companies realize monopolies or was that outcome unintentional? Did the government play a passive role, and simply do nothing while the trusts developed? Was it passive because it didn't realize what was happening, was it convinced to look the other way, or was it neutral?

Thanks!

I remember reading once that scandinavians were given places of prominence in nazi hierarchy.

I realize it probably varied from emperor to emperor so lets use Marcus Aurelius to Commodus but if there are any other interesting stories I would love to hear them.

Specifically why he started to allow landless men to join. I've seen many opinions about why it happened, but do ancient sources give a reason?

Name several examples if you like.

Was watching a documentary. An allied infantry survivor in WW1 recalled that when he saw his German enemy, he recalled the commandment that "thou shalt not kill," and instead of killing the German he shot him in the legs.

Did this occur often?

Looking at Ancient Greek and Hebrew understandings of the afterlife, it was depicted as a bit of a "nothing place". Jesus' descriptions in the New Testament don't seem to depart much from this view, likening Hell to a landfill.

At what point did Hell become an inferno? When did torture enter the story?

And how accurate is my knowledge?

I imagine not many civilians had flying experience. When they drafted you, did they only take the small amount of people who had experience or did they train people with no experience?

I suspect the answer to this is "not possible barring abnormal talent and luck", but I wanted to check to make sure.

I majored in history as an undergraduate, went to law school immediately thereafter, and am currently a practicing attorney (in the US). My former university still provides me with subscriptions to JSTOR, HeinOnline, and access to some publications within EBSCO as an alumni perk. I remain interested in legal history, and am willing to dedicate a lot of my free time to historical research.

I wondered whether it is realistic to pursue a 5-6 year plan to publish work in a reasonably respectable peer reviewed historical journal that will make some (albeit limited) contribution to the field.

The broad time period and region I'm looking into would be in the Roman Empire at some point during the Early Christian period before 326. My area of investigation would be legal history.

What about other top government projects?

It seems that humans have attached meaning to flowers a long time ago, and I am really interested to know when & how

From what I can tell the 'Fyrd' system was in place for a long time in Anglo-Saxon England, having been implemented, used and improved since at least the time of Alfred the Great. While I understand that many troops would have been of relatively low quality, it still seems that it was a more efficient form of raising large forces than the ways the Normans later utilized.

.

I've been reading a bit of Ian Morris again and he pointed out that agriculture started much later in Mexico than in the Old World, but that large cities and state societies followed only a couple millennia after, whereas in the Old World the cities and states of Mesopotamia and Egypt came about 5000 years after the neolithic revolution. Also, the New World cities became larger more quickly; Teotihuacan, which was only ~1000 years after the first (known?) Mesoamerican cities, had over 100,000 people and was one of the largest cities in the world, while Old World cities only reached comparable size in the Iron Age, more than two thousand years after the first Old World cities.

So I have three questions:

1. Did urbanism actually arise more quickly after agriculture in the New World than the Old? Is this commonly accepted or is there some dispute?

(I think there's sub-question here about how to date the origin of agriculture and the origin of cities)

2. If so, what hypotheses have been proposed to explain this? I'd be extremely surprised if any one hypothesis has wide support, but I'd like to know what ideas have been tossed around.

3. Also, if very large Mesoamerican cities followed the first Mesoamerican cities quicker than very large Old World cities followed the first Old World cities, what hypotheses are there to explain the discrepancy?

(as might be clear, by "New World" I'm thinking mostly of Mesoamerica here, but I wouldn't mind hearing about how the Andes support or complicate the picture)

As the God of the underworld many people would associate him with evil however after my semester at school it seems that compared to Zeus and Poseidon, Hades seems to be quite tame and civil.

Has my teacher simply ignored any wrongdoing by Hades or did was he supposed to generally stay out of drama

I know the movie played fast and loose with history, but this bothered me.

What it says on the tin. Did the Roman Empire have any military or judicial units whose sole purpose was to investigate suspicious deaths, interview witnesses and present evidence of a crime? I'm talking about crimes that affected both the noble families and the peasantry.

I've noticed that recordings of singers from the 1920s-1940s are generally noticeably higher in pitch than singers from the 1950s-1960s. I know that something to do with the mechanics of making the recordings caused earlier ones to be higher, but is that all that there is to this difference? Before I heard about the mechanical issue, I thought this was in part social - higher voices being more fashionable earlier in the century. Am I totally off, musicologists, or is this just about how music was recorded?

(reposting because I got no replies last time) I'm midway through the book and struggling to sustain interest and take it all very seriously. Firstly, the sheer amount of repetition is wearisome. Secondly, the entire premise of cycles of accumulation seems to be based on four data-points (Genoese, Dutch, British, US) - it seems like a lot of wishful extrapolation, especially with three of the four centered around locations in a thousand kilometre radius of each other. It seems rather dodgy that someone would try to build a grand unified theory using such little data, and all of it so closely clustered geographically. And finally, there appears to be a presumption of determinism that Arrighi takes for granted. Any ideas and suggestions on how to read this book (or even if I should continue) are appreciated.