In the lead-up to the Revolutionary War, a big sticking point for the Americans was “no taxation without representation.” So why did the British not simply give the Americans representation? It seems to me that if they did that, they could still outvote the colonial representatives in Parliament and pass their tax acts. So why didn’t the British do this?

Eratosthenes was able to calculate that the Earth was not only roughly spherical, but he was even able to understand how big the planet actually was.

It stands to reason then, that if he understood the circumference of the earth to be around 40,000 kilometers, he would understand that the various peoples of the Mediterranean knew little to nothing of a large percentage of the planet. How well known did this information become after its discovery, and did it spurn on any known debate/exploration to determine what existed outside the 3,000 square mile area the Greek/latin world understood?

Thanks in advance!

I’ve read that a lot of modern historians are super skeptical that the Carib people that the term “cannibal” came from were even cannibals at all, and that it was just speculated by the settlers that they were because they sometimes “used human body parts as trophies,” and then the idea became ingrained In Spanish colonist propaganda as a way to justify why they kept killing, enslaving, dismembering, and/or converting them to Christianity.

So is there any actual archeological or even anecdotal evidence that the Carib people did regularly or ritualistically engage in cannibalism? Did anyone actually write that they witnessed the natives slaughtering and cooking and eating human meat, or was it all based on the fact that they sometimes used body parts as “trophies?” Is there evidence that the natives likely just buried their dead or otherwise normally disposed of their bodies in tact? Is it possible that as the new European diseases were ravaging the native populations that they may have had to resort to cannibalism because nobody was healthy enough to hunt or forage, and that helped reinforce the idea?

Also is it possible that when the natives saw Columbus’ settlement on Hispaniola when they were hanging body parts around the camp as a warning or whatever that the natives thought that they were cannibals?

Was the general European population even aware of Native Americans living there? Did anyone ever speak up and say, "Hey, maybe we shouldn't be kicking these people out of their homes"?

I find it odd that at a time when nation states weren't a thing people had this notion of burgundians being "french but not french"

I have never heard of the Spanish people calling Portuguese people "false spaniards" or german people calling austrians "false germans", specially not back then

This also makes me wonder how did burgundian people perceive themselves. Maybe they couldn't deny their culture and language were similar to France's, but maybe they had their own "burgundian identity"... I don't know

This post has more or less 3 questions

Question 1:how are we even able to translate the words and phrases written in said languages?Like ,I know that we more or less managed to find out how cuneiform works,but still,wouldn't the end result be just a mesh of syllabels to us? Question 2:how do we know what glyph(?) makes what sound? Question 3: are we sure that the progress we made is 100% accurate?

P.s After proof-reading this post it sounds a little,,condecending" to me ,which shouldn't be the case,the subject is genuiently interesting to me and I can't find anything about it on the internet

Our understanding of the speed of light and the speed of sound is very very new yet it was observable always. When did people start catching on? Do we know how a person would understand this 2,000 years ago?

Wikipedia suggests that Stalin had Vavilov imprisoned just because Vavilov criticized Lysenko's theories, and Stalin favored Lysenko. Why didn't Stalin just ignore Vavilov? Did Vavilov embarrass Stalin?

So I listened to all of Dan Carlins Death Throes of the Rebublic and then watched Netflix's Roman Empire and noticed some huge inconsistencies between the two. All sorts of things were confusing to me about the Netflix show.

The Netflix show mentioned Cesar's family was on the wrong side of a civil war. Wasn't Cesar's family allied with Sulla and Sulla won? The Netflix show doesn't seem to really cover Cato or Cicero or any of the gangs in Rome. I thought Mark Antony was representing Cesar to the senate trying to negotiate before Cesar crossed the Rubicon. Didn't Cesar cross the Rubicon with only the 13th legion and not his entire army? The show made it look like Pompey didn't really care for Julia at all.

How historically accurate is Dan Carlin (Im a huge fan and listened to all his stuff) and I'm curious if the rest of this show is even historically accurate at all and worth watching or if it's just dramatized. Also for anyone who watched this show or listened to Dan Carlin can someone list some historical accuracies and inaccuracies from each? Thank you.

Whether in Last Kingdom or Game of Thrones or in games like Crusader Kings, it is often shown that Dukes and Counts reside at the King's court to lend their advice or perform duties. While I have some assumptions on this, I'd like to hear how accurate this was and any insight on what that actually means and how it all worked out in practice. For example, would this not mean that the lords often lived apart from their wife and children for most of the year and that it is the lady who governs the estate and hear local petitions?

Didn't the United States used to be colonies filled with british people? How come americans don't have a British accent nowdays?

For those who don't know what I'm referring to, look up "Blok śmierci" in Polish and you will see the block of death where I presume people were executed. Was it written in Polish because that was the common language of the area, or is there another reason?

I am doing a project where I replicate the routines of women during the 1920s. I wanted to focus specifically on flappers, but I had been struggling to find information regarding their morning routines.

Did they do skincare and apply makeup the same way as the average woman. Were their dresses short and revealing or did they only wear this type of attire during the evening? Did they wear the same jewelry, accessories, and shoewear during the day and evening?

All in all, the question I wanted to ask was what did the morning routine of an everyday flapper during the 1920s consist of? Thank you in advance!