[deleted]

Obviously the word honor has a few similar meanings, but where did the idea of living honorably begin. It seems to be a fairly wide reaching concept, from Japan to Native Americans to medieval Europe and beyond.

Did it evolve in a central location and spread or was it an ideal that sprang naturally from several different cultures organically?

Are there any good websites I can look at to learn about some of the massive building projects that Stalin started or wanted to start?

Never found an answer to this question before!

[deleted]

Who was the first Pharaoh? And how did they become the Pharaoh? Was it because they were the leader of the strongest tribe that conquered other tribes? Did someone divine this person was to be their leader?

I own several guns, one of them being a 30-06. The first time I shot it I didn't wear ear plugs and my ears were ringing for over a day. Now I wholeheartedly refuse to fire anything without having earplugs in. So, how did soldiers involved in battle not lose their hearing? The D-day landings especially, with all the gunfire (M1 Garands=30-06), artillery, machine guns, etc. seems like they would've had a lot more than a little ringing in the ears...

[deleted]

The US has various forts and probably small towns as well, that are built (or restored) to give a sense of life in the 17th/18th/19th centuries. Fort Mackinac was my first thought, but I'm sure there are numerous others.

Have there been any attempts to do this with ancient historical sites? Some examples I was thinking of would be like a Roman border fort, or the Acropolis in Athens. Something where it's not just ruins or a current archaeological dig, but something that tries to recreate the architecture, colors, and overall atmosphere of an ancient site.

If there hasn't been much done like this, then follow-up question: what are the oldest full scale recreation/restoration projects? Oldest in terms of the time period. Renaissance? Early middle ages?

It always puzzled me considering the British were fighting the Germans for quite some time before America got involved, I know it truly was a world war but it seems it was Europes war to win.

I don't really know...I'm sitting here thinking that history written from the view of the "common man" and what life was like during then for your average John Doe would be really awesome but "Marx" in any field in general almost has an automatic negative connotation with it. Does that continue throughout the study of history? I know that Zinn is criticized but it seems more that he's criticized for his methods and research rather than attempting to write history from a Marxist perspective in the first place.

Obviously this is a complicated question, seeing as the answer is really dependent on the subject and the specific journal. My personal interest lies in medieval journals. Thanks.

Did it help change the plight of the slaves? Or is it a narrative we read to look back and say gee yea slavery was really bad.

Hi, I have a question about what word would be the correct one to use. If historians want to make statements about the past, they need to do so based on things that are left over from the past, right? I'm talking about written reports, letters, old books, ruins of buildings, photographs, human remains, and so on. How do historians refer to these things in general? I guess you could call them evidence or proof or whatever. But beyond that, what is the proper word to use - would that be artefacts, or relics? Or is there some other word that historians like to use here? Thanks for your time.

[deleted]

I looked through the FAQ and didn't find this listed there. If it is, you have my apologies.

What was typically done with the leftovers from a clash of armies? Were thousands of bodies usually left exposed for months or years? What would have been done with the weapons and armor of the fallen? Was this someone within the army's job to reclaim what might be useful? Do historical sources typically address this or are we forced to use archaeology to know what we know on the topic?

I have no scholarly sources that can back up this idea, but it came to me while doing a university course on post-Roman Gaul. Writers like Gregory of Tours seem to place enormous importance on saints and attribute miracles to sites associated with them, almost to the point that the idea of Jesus Christ is lost. Is this effectively a channelling of Roman polytheism into something more fitting with Christianity, and was this a factor in Christianity displacing earlier forms of worship?

In the TV show Vikings, the King and two earls go to war as equals. How does this work, what was the hierarchy in Viking society, what was the difference between a King, Earl and Jarl. Also, how united and organised were the Vikings? The Swedes, Danes and Norwegians seem to be separate peoples, were these the only groupings of 'Vikings', are these accurate categorisations?

I figure one would have to have a pretty strong sense of character to be able to stand up against Hitler for so long.