I've always asked myself this question. I'm not an historian or a classicist but I enjoy reading ancient texts. To give you an example, I was reading a book of Heraclitus fragments, selected by an important classicist. And I asked myself, where did he find these fragments? Did he have a text similar to what I have in my hands, a compendium made by someone else? Or did he went to find the actual sources for the fragments? What sources did he use? From what I understand we don't have the actual texts from 500 B.C. ; the texts are available to us because of continuous copying during history. So when a professor wants to write a book on for example Heraclitus fragments, where does he go? To a medieval copy of Aristotle work for example; or an earlier copy? Or a compendium made in the 1800s? Do you confront many texts? I mean, are the fragments all identical word for word, or they differ between texts? How can you be sure the text you're reading is the most accurate?

Hi all, I am currently working on a project discussing urban militia in Northern German cities (between about 1350-1500) and something that inevitably crops up when discussing Northern German cities in the High/Late Medieval period is the Hanseatic League. I have only a limited understanding of German and am having some difficulty finding sources in English about the League that aren't very old and likely outdated.

So now comes my question, what are some good academic sources that discuss the Hanseatic League?

I've heard multiple explanations from this, ranging from accusations against Julius Caesar starting a great fire, to Omar Ibn Al-Khattab ordering the destruction of all secular and infidel books held within.

I've also heard those who say that describing the event as a "destruction" or a "burning" is inaccurate, rather that the library slowly fell into an unkept, unstaffed, derelict state due to underfunding, neglect, and a brief bout of scholastic-related hardship in Alexandria.

My college textbook Landmarks in Humanities 4e says the following, " Alexandria, which replaced Athens as a cultural center, boasted a population of more than one million people and a library of half a million books (the collection was destroyed by fire when Julius Caesar besieged the city in 47 b.c.e.)" (Fiero).

I'm a writer, and I have a WIP of which the first chunk is set mostly in southern Louisiana just before the Civil War (1855-1860). One of my characters is a rich planter who of mixed white and Indian ancestry.

It's been fairly straightforward to find information on how mixed black-white people fared in the south, but less so to find information on mixed white-native people. I imagine it wasn't ideal, but it's hard to find much online.

I'm just wondering, would a man who obviously had native ancestry have been able to hold significant social capital in the antebellum south, granting that he was a wealthy slaveholder? Would he have been able to mingle socially with whites? Conduct business transactions with whites? Marry a white woman? etc.

Any recommended reading on this topic would be much appreciated.

My family is dealing with some nightmare immigration bureaucracy and it got me wondering… there are so many accounts of, for instance, American artists living in foreign nations for extensive periods (like the Lost Generation writers in 1920s Paris) or wealthy British Victorians who seemed to spend months and months abroad at a time across Italy, France, Greece, etc. How was this accomplished? Did one need to apply for permission to travel or stay? Did they have to worry about taxes in the nation in which they were residing?

And what about much further back? In the Middle Ages, say, if someone from England showed up in France, did they have to register with local authorities or something?

Thanks!

Was polish militia Home Army tax funded or private? Was it effective means of fighting with political enemies, given number of soldiers?

I was watching a few videos about the older sailors and it said how they used to drink Grog because fresh water in barrels spoiled. How exactly did it spoil?

In the British drama series Downton Abby, a major background and plot framing device is the decline of many aristocratic estates throughout the countryside after World War I. The series depicts many noble families having to cut back in servants and staff, and in many cases sell off their estates. How accurate is this depiction? What factors lead to the landed aristocracy becoming defunct financially and having to sell off their estates and property?

I've recently discovered that it's apparently commonly accepted among historians and outside of pop history that the Marian Reforms didn't actually happen or at the very least it's existence is incredibly dubious as there's apparently no direct source for other than a historian from the 1800s(?) that attributed it to Marius.

If this is the case, how were the legions recruited in the late republic and what were their incentives to have more loyalty towards their generals rather than the state? Is the latter even true? Did some variation of the Marian reforms still happen? Or did the republic still utilize traditional conscription during that time period.

And on another note, which Marius accomplishments were actually real and was he as influential of a figure in the republic as he's commonly portrayed in pop history.

Homosexuality (and other sexual orientations) have existed throughout history.

So what events or sequence of events sparked the change in how non-heterosexual practices were viewed: from not caring to discriminating to moderate acceptance?

I understand this answer probably varies greatly between cultures so focusing on Western culture.

Obviously it happened early in the war so there's not going to be much evidence of specific events. Did Japanese war planners foresee taking advantage of the large ethnic japanese population on the west coast?

From my understanding, arranged marriages did happen between commoners/peasants for economical reasons. What I wanted to know was: could she be forced into this marriage (or essentially backed into a corner where any other attempts to marry anyone else besides who the family chose would be "denied")?

Can parents keep their daughter from marrying someone they wanted to marry? Also, what was the general process of proposing an arranged marriage and are the daughters/children involved in the contract planning at all or just the parents?

The reasons the North would not have declared ware are pretty obvious, declaring war would effectively have recognized the CSA as a sovereign nation, which would have been counter to the aim of suppressing a rebellion and which would have opened the doors to other nations to recognize the CSA.

But why didn't the CSA declare war on the USA? That would have seemed to have been consistent with their claim to sovereignty, let alone the fact that the large war was is major endeavor at the time.

(Hope this hasn't been asked before, I did a search and couldn't find where it had been).

I'm currently reading a book about the history of books and the author is repeatedly citing translations of Roman texts that were made in the late 1800's and early 1900's. We've learned a lot about Roman and Egyptian culture in between when the translation was written and when the book I'm reading was written and I don't know if that has an effect on the translation.

I'm curious if translations of ancient texts are always viable or if they can ever be considered out-of-date.

Edit: Typo fixed.

I was rather confused when, during my Chinese History class, the teacher mentioned something about two factions' views concerning the "Opium Question". One advocated for the complete prohibition of opium, and that foreign merchants should be banned from selling opium to the country's inhabitants. Another, by contrast, sought to legalize the drug, albeit only limiting its use to peasants, with the stipulation that court officials, army officers and bannermen were strictly forbidden to consume the substance.

The latter's advocacy presented, or at least what I believe, a brilliant solution to the opium crisis which had so long ravaged the Qing - they would tax, regulate and begin their own opium production. Such a plan would, in theory, resolve the trade defict and simultaneously avoid antagonizing the foreign merchants.

So why did the emperor refuse?

Was there some sort of official translator assigned to these ambassadors or perhaps even couriers, and was there any event where wrong translations or lost in translation issues led to conflicts/hostilities?

Why was Alan Turing vilified, convicted, and chemically castrated despite his vital contributions, while his near contemporary intellectual John Maynard Keynes, open about his homosexuality, was tolerated?

I think we all know what happened to high ranking members who are part of the Holocaust. Generals, commanders of camps have been tried and some executed for their crimes. But what about the rank and file, such as guards, train engineers who transport prisoners to the camps, and others in administrative roles? Were they prosecuted? Did it depend on who directly killed the prisoners or they have a hand in it, and to what extent is a hand in the killing?