Been wondering for a while now.

I know it's not really a history question, but i've always wondered why there is this definite point in time where human societies began to form. We have a hundred thousand years old registers of humans using tools and trying out agriculture, but there is a lack of anything society worthy, no architecture or anything.

And then, it looks like there is a suddenly rush of civilizations emerging from nomads and bands of hunter-gatherers everywhere in the world that takes place 10 thousand years after the last iceage (what is not that much comparing with how long humans have been around.), i am pretty sure all major cultures we know do not date to far before that but i don't know why.

Say I'm a Christian during the late third century, just before the Diocletianic persecutions. What sort of works am I reading to broaden my scope of Christianity? Would the texts be considered illegal? Like, aside from faith through Jesus and all of that, what would I do to affirm my faith? Secret services? Underground meetings?

[deleted]

Hi all,

I'm doing a research paper for my English class, and I'm doing my paper on the dangers of revision regarding unpleasant historical events, like genocide. My professor told me to focus on three genocides/mass killings that receive significant revision and denial, be it from governments or political/social groups.

I have chosen the Holocaust and the Armenian genocide as two of them, focusing on neo-Nazis anti-semites and the Turkish government respectively, but I can't really seem to find a third event. I thought of doing WW2 Japanese war crimes, but after doing some research, the events don't really seem to be denied, ignored or contested in any significant amount today. The theme of my paper is that denial and much of historical revision of genocide-like events is just a continuation of the genocide, and I just can't seem to find a third event to utilize.

So my question -- outside of the Holocaust and Armenian genocide -- what are historical events involving mass killings that are denied/contested of validity for me to research?

Any help is appreciated. I'm really stuck.

The modern state of Israel has done a remarkable job reviving a national identity that's hardly existed since the 1st century, bringing back a number of things once relegated to the ancient world. It would seem only natural that a people dedicated to resurrecting an old civilization would have triumphantly constructed a new version of what was once their most unifying structure, destroyed twice by invaders. I'm not Jewish, so I might be fundamentally misunderstanding this topic, but it seems curious that this wouldn't have been among the bold proposals of Zionist leaders. If it was, why didn't it happen, and if it wasn't, what kept it from being so?

I was talking to my girlfriend about how long tea has been around and I got to thinking about what the first drink that people had the option to consume other than water, would it have been tea or wine or some sort of infused fruit water?

Once slaves were set free did they continue to work for the same establishments that they had as a slave but now for pay? Did they continue to live in the same houses that they had previously but now presumably paying rent to stay there? I imagine that many slaves who were mistreated would leave their former masters as soon as they could. If so did this cause many plantations to close down or go bust? Thank you to anyone who can answer my question, there doesn't seem to be anything in the FAQ about this subject.

This was obviously before Christopher Columbus. As far as "the North from the South" is concerned, they could be as little a millimeters apart, whereas "East and West" never touch.

I know King Alfred was key in bringing the Kingdoms of England together. But I was wondering at around what point did England feel united rather than a mix of the Norman and Anglo-Saxon?

So, I've been watching the channel The Great War and in one of the Q&A videos they host, Indy, talked about how foreign the Civil War was to European generals given the numerous advancements made in the Civil War like telegrams, repeating rifles, and trench warfare. I also know that the US had used shotguns in WW1 which made the Germans threaten to execute any prisoner caught using one. So I wondered, in the grand scheme of things, how did the European powers view the Americans once they entered the Great War?

I've occasionally heard the credibility of popular historical books and authors called into question in part because they rely heavily on secondary sources. I also remember in my high school AP history classes they also mentioned this.

I'm having a hard time seeing why this is considered a problem. Obviously, if you are an academic historian writing for an academic audience then it is best to know and cite primary sources.

But, if somebody is writing a book or making a podcast for popular consumption on a period of history, and the secondary sources are a representative sampling of contemporary academic historians on the topic, shouldn't it be broadly accurate? Isn't that good enough?

and i dont mean propaganda music i mean music from german artists that hapend to make and release music during the nazi era

I hope this is the correct place to post this. My Grandfather passed away this week at the age of 92 and his service in WW2 has been a point of conversation amongst our family. A man of few words he hardly spoke of the war and I want to find out some more about his service.

What I know: He served in Patton's Army with Company I, 377th Infantry he was involved in battles in Rhineland and Central Europe. He enlisted in 1943 and was wounded in action in November, 1944.

I would just like to find some more info about Company I and their involvement in the war. Thank you for all the help in advance.

I know a lot of people like to prove it otherwise but, if any empirical evidence actually supports some of the ideas like the early ancient Egyptians were black, the African presence in the Americas that predated the European, of black civilization in East Asia or the Black Athena idea. Some notable scholars that come to mind are John Henrik Clarke, Ivan van Sertima, and Martin Bernal.

As I understand it most of what the Kurds consider Kurdistan are inside the borders of turkey. What I don't understand is why did the Allies at the end of WWI allow Turkey to maintain power over the area?

It makes no sense. It's not Russian in any way, and historically never was. I don't see THAT much strategic use. Why did the Soviet Union take Koenigsberg/Kaliningrad from Germany?

How true are these claims?

I've noticed that most city armory buildings built in the early 1900s are all built with really high, arched ceilings. I understand the arches for support, but I can't really think of a purpose for them being built so high (like 3-4 story tall open spaces). Seems like a waste of materials and efficiency