I've been reading Alexander the Great: Lessons in strategy by David Lonsdale (if there's any major criticisms of the book I'm interested to hear those too), and he talks about how Alexander attempted to circumvent or neutralize the dominance of the Persian navy by capturing the ports in Anatolia and Syria that were required to keep the Persian navy operational.

However he doesn't address how Alexander actually managed to get his army across the Hellespont in the first place. It certainly seems as if a superior navy could prevent anyone from crossing the strait.

Hello!

I think I've posted here once before and I was hoping you wonderfully talented folks could point me in the right direction.

I'm trying to learn more history. However, I've found that for myself the most efficient way to learn something involved its application and answering questions. That said, are there question driven texts that I could use to learn history? I've started learning about the Middle East and I'm reading Bernard Lewis' The Middle East and while I enjoy the narrative, as long as I'm passively reading things I'm going to forget. I've read before that in learning history I should focus less on facts and more themes/motifs/over-arching concepts and I try to do that, but there is still sooooo much to learn that being successful feels incredibly daunting. I feel like question sets, because they focus on asking things that are presumably important, serve as a guide and so I'd hope to find something like that.

I've gone online and found previous exams though AP College Board for World History and European History and stuff, and I'm going to use these as guides for things to learn.

It might also be a memory problem. There's so much to learn, so many facts, and while the advice isn't to memorize anything, I see experts that have so much knowledge that they can just recite that I wonder how they do it. Active learning helps this process and I'm just trying to be efficient.

Does my question make sense? I'm hoping it does. Anyway, hope you folks can help.

Or would a Crown Prince typically be educated at court?

What would his education curriculum be?

Being rich? having a good job side by side with the king? etc...

I've been reading about Machiavelli and Guicciardini, and their attributes to the study of History, and I'm fascinated by it.

And what were the cultural and legal traditions that led to its abolition?

Quick edit - I should have used the term decriminalized instead of legalized.

Basically, if someone were to buy pot that is taxed by the Dutch government then travel to, say, Belgium where pot is illegal & they're incarcerated & sent to trial all on the Belgian tax payer's dime, wouldn't the law makers in Belgium want to have a word with the law makers in Holland?

Hello!

I recently got interested in John Dee, and that made me want to know more about the history of Renaissance esotericism (witchcraft, alchemy, ...) ... As I don't know the field at all, save from some names, I don't know if my question is specific enough ... If it is not, I will do my best to give additional informations about what I want exactly.

I've looked around a bit, but only come across "Regan did it" as an answer without much to support it. From what my mother mentioned, immigrants from Mexico had a day of registration every year, and that was it. What changed?

Section One of the Thirteenth Amendment reads as follows: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." Emphasis mine. What does that part mean? People can be enslaved as a punishment? What is the history of this?

On another thread on this subreddit, a lot of endorsed contributors and mods claimed that the existence of Jesus has pretty much been 100% established.

Judging by the gospels, Jesus was resurrected after being executed and this is what finally convinced all the apostles to spread the word of Christianity.

Obviously, secular historical analysis probably does not accept that he actually woke up after dying and walked around Jerusalem. Have any historians speculated on what could have actually happened to trigger the apostles and send them across the empire? It seems that something profound happened to them, considering that they were willing to be tortured and killed for their belief. That, to me, shows that either they actually saw something miraculous or believed they did.

So what is the most likely secular explanation for the Resurrection?

Watching Straight Outta Compton and Narcos sparked my interest in crime and drugs in the United States during that period and the rate in usage of both during this period is staggering in comparison to before the 70's and after early 90's.

Hi. I wonder what Native Americans originally called themselves. Did they have an umbrella term or common name for the people who lived in north/central/south America before people of other nations settled down? It can hardly be Native Americans. I don´t call myself "Native Norwegian" even though I am 100% Norwegian and my ancestors are mostly of Norwegian origin.

I know that there are tribal groups like Apache and Cherokee. Like in Norway we have Samer or Sami people, but they are still considered to be Norwegians. Of course I am aware that the term "Indian" is not the correct way to put it either. Because of the discovery of America and Christopher Columbus confusing America for being India and so forth. So if anyone are to say Indian (at least here in Norway) most of the time someone will correct you and say that Native American is the right name to use and that it is offensive to say otherwise. But I don´t feel that using Native American is any better.

Of what I have heard the term Native American is a result of europeans coming to America and labelling themself as "Americans", and therefore conclude that Native Americans is the right term to use for the people who lived there before them. I just find it weird.

Please don´t think that this is an attempt to insult anyone. This is just a thought that struck me yesterday.

To be more precise, why did the Nazis feel the need to tell the difference between a person who was for example 1/4 Jewish and a person who was 1/8? Considering how extreme they were couldn't they just consider anyone who had Jewish ancestry Jewish no matter how long ago their Jewish ancestor lived?

This was just after they attempted to assassinate him.

What effect did it have on nations such as Germany and Russia. I have previously read that it had influenced the Bolshevik Revolution century later. Would appreciate it if someone could give a detailed response or link me to a source with a detailed response.