Seems odd to me. For starters didn’t the Romans love the Greeks and their culture? Also seems weird for them to want to claim descent from a group most famous for how hard they got tricked.

I guess the obvious benefit is piggybacking off one of the most famous cultures. Make the most famous story a trilogy and hope no one calls you out. And the Trojans stealing Helen kinda resembles the Rape of the Sabine. But that doesn’t seem like a part of their history they’d want to remember. I guess it would make sense if the Romans hated the Greeks. I always assumed they loved the Greeks.

Also not sure if the Aeneid was a story Virgil wrote or just wrote down. Maybe it would make sense if it were a folk tale?

Reading about the region, it always perplexed me as to how despite pretty much only growing sugar they managed to support a large number of slaves and owners.

In WWII, General MacArthur proposed a plan of invading Japan first by starting in Australia, taking Papua New Guinea, and then taking the Philippines. Taking the Philippines allowed the US to cut Japan off from its oil in Indonesia, and allowed it to serve as a larger staging ground for a future attack on the Japanese mainland. However, Admiral Nimitz wanted the US to gradually take islands in the Western Pacific, and build airfields that would facilitate the taking of more islands. Eventually, the US would take the Japanese mainland this way. This latter strategy is much more iconic, involved the United States Marine Corps, and resulted in famous battles like Saipan, Tarawa, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, etc. In the end, the US had sufficient resources to execute both plans. However, do military historians today have a general opinion as to which strategy was better? My intuition is that the Army's strategy was better because it threatened Japanese logistics more (the US was able to interdict Japanese shipping from Indonesia) and also served as a larger base for an invasion of Japan. What do most historians think?

I’ve seen everything online, from part of the family to mass deaths. I know that people were enslaved left right and centre, even Muslims when there was a short supply, but how were they actually allowed to be treated, and how were they actually treated?

Economically, there is a concept of a pareto distribution where all the wealth goes to fewer and fewer people. Historically, you see most people in a town being poor people with one really rich family.

The only times I can think where wealth building occurs for the lower classes is when some new resource or country is opened for wealth generation and established organizations/families are too slow to take advantage of it, or when there are violent revolutions and the existing organizations/families are destroyed. looking on google, I mostly get swamped by people talking about why wealth transfers upwards, but not many talking about the cases when the opposite happens. Does anybody here have any resources that talk about when these situations happen in history?

edit: Histrocially isn't remotely a word. Sorry everyone.

In 1938, Stalin altered the law to extend the vote to everyone - even the former landed nobility, petty bourgeoisie and so forth whom had been immediately denied equality after the assumption of Bolshevik power. So, my question is, what were the votes for and where did they take place?

Well, I've been trying to put together the history of the world.

Like how, why and when did Romani people got persecuted, how did Genghis Kan went down on history, what were really like the Inca and Mayan empires, what were the most important wars that ever happened apart from war I and 2, how slaved ended and where it kind of didn't, what was it like the 50's segregation in USA, when and why the silk road came to be etc....

​

I'm trying to put together a lot and hopefuly plug the holes of my ignorance.

I know it's a lot to ask, but what books do you recomend to understand the big picture?

It can be big sum up, or different books, or a series... anything that you thik is mandatory read to really understand that stuff.

Would they have known they were the last of their species? When did this happen? What where there forces that drove the Neanderthal species to extinction?

I was wondering if there is a pdf of what remains from Sulla's Memoirs, preferably in english as well. I am aware that they are used by Plutarch in his lives but I was hopping to find the actual work.

Like would they have taken the twelve labors of Hercules literally? Woud they believe that there was a man-bull hybrid under Crete? Did they think someone actually flew to close to the sun? Or would they say they are fictional events that feature the deities they believe in?

So, i heard this one a long time ago, but i only recently remembered it, and i want to know if it is true or not, and if it isn't true, what really happened?

How did Feudal court systems work. I have read that kings would have days where they would sit in court and act as a judge and members of the kingdom could come to court to have him settle disputes. Was there any process of who got to have their case heard? Were there tiers of court systems I.e. commoner goes to local magistrate, lower noble dispute has ruling of next highest up nobility? If so, were there any systems of appeals?

Like, as I understand it the narrative is that the USSR was a militant, Atheist state which imprisoned and executed people for being religious.

But that always sort of confused me, because Russia and other former Warsaw Pact nations have a pretty large religious community - Russia itself basically being largely Orthodox Christians, protestants, Muslims and Jews yes?

I’m not sure if this is the best place to ask this question, but since it is about how we record history, historians seem like the right people to ask.

My grandmother’s parents were artists. Most people won’t know their names, but would recognize one of my great-grandfather’s works. They do both have Wikipedia pages. My local university has a small exhibit about my great-grandmother. There have been a handful of books written about them. Someone recently made a documentary about my great-grandmother that I doubt anyone watched. Basically, there’s a little bit of academic interest in them, but not a ton.

My great-grandfather was a known philanderer. Biographies usually touch on this and his numerous famous affair partners and subsequent wives. This is important for my family secret.

My grandmother recently revealed to my cousin that the woman everyone assumes to be her birth mother is not actually her birth mother. Apparently great-grandmother couldn’t have children. When they were living in London, great-grandfather had an affair with the live-in maid. The maid became pregnant and great-grandmother saw her chance to be a mother. Great-grandfather left for a job in New York City (unclear if before or after they found out the maid was pregnant). About a year later, great-grandmother showed up in NYC with a baby and her own name on the birth certificate as the mother. I have no idea how consenting the maid was to any of this or anything about the maid’s identity.

My question basically is 1) is this something important for art historians who study my great-grandparents to know and 2) how do I share this information with historians? I certainly don’t want to do anything until after my grandmother passes on (she’s deeply embarrassed about the whole thing), but it also doesn’t seem like something that should die with her.

It just feels weird that a series so popular like Dragon Quest, so clearly inspired by D&D, wouldn't spawn more cultural interest in tabletop RPGs, but when you look at the biggest ones, none of them came from Japan. What's up with this disparity between tabletop and electronic RPGs?

If these encounters did occur, what were they like? Did the opposing sailors ignore each other? Help each other? Did theyFight??