I have heard other people make claims about men of legend being real. I am just wondering could an argument be made by a historian that Hercules was real?

(if this question has been asked and most likey in a better fashion then just point me there please )

I'm interested in educating myself about the topic, so a synopsis of the major theories would be great. Also helpful would be a reading list.

One question I'm particularly keen to have answered is, do historians consider antisemitism to have emerged as a phenomenon "differently" than other instances of xenophobia/ racism/etc.?

Thanks in advance!

I'm under the impression there was a large sect of (mostly northern) framers that opposed legalizing slavery and discrimination laws, but compromised with the southerners for the sake of democracy. Did any of them acknowledge how this compromise will reflect them and their actions years down the road?

I've been reading about the Peloponnesian War and have read that Sparta felt threatened by Athens ambitions of Democracy (an allusion of Thucydides).

However, Syracuse was Democratic at the time of the failed Syracuse campaign. Syracuse was not an Athenian colleague obviously, but I don't see friendly relations with Democratic states. It seems Athens was primarily concerned with colonies that could contribute either men or resources to Athens. I haven't read of any cities or colonies being founded or acquired where they adopted Democratic ideals.

From what I've studied, the Indian Ocean was a Mare Liberum of rich trade and culture for over a thousand years. What was the initial fallout when European explorers and traders started establishing their own trade routes? Did they have any understanding of the region's history or culture?

I stumbled across Trajan's letters to Pliny the other day and found them to be incredibly interesting. Not because they concerned huge events in history, but mainly for the opposite reason. It was fascinating to read Trajan's thoughts on some of the day-to-day minutiae of running the empire.

Are there any other examples of similar letters or writings from leaders throughout history? I'm sure there are, but I don't really know where to look. I'm more interested in things that weren't meant for wide distribution so they don't get caught up in boasting or exaggerating about whatever subject they are discussing. Like I said, the small details of being in charge seem to catch my interest the most.

The attack on the Gallipoli peninsula was a brain child of Winston Churchill, though he was not the only one promoting the campaign and there have been many other leaders in military and politics who faild miserably, starting with Lord Kitchener himself.

Besides the consequences to his political career, how did Churchill later deal with Gallipoli? I have never read his autobiography (it's on my to-read list since 2 decades or so) or any biography about him.

Did he take over the responsibility?

Did the campaign influenced later decisions in WWII?

How, if ever, did he deal with the moral implications of his idea to open up a front in the "backyard" of Germany and Austria which lead to the loss of a quarter million soldiers and seamen?

I only know a bit of Churchill regarding his time as Prime Minister in WWII, read some of his famous speeches, but can't recall if Gallipoli was mentioned.

In The Greatest Traitor, Ian Mortimer claimed that Edward II's death was faked and in The Perfect King he produces more evidence that this was the case. As well as inconsistencies in chronicles and reports of his death, Mortimer also cites the Fieschi letter which recounts Edward II's movements in Ireland and France after the reported date of his death. Mortimer goes on to report the existence of a William le Galeys in the accounts of the royal wardrobe, who claims to be Edward III's father. This, he claims, points to the deposed Edward II living under the protection of Italian gentry as a recluse. He backs this up with a lot of research concerning Edward III's links to the Italian nobility and the "arrest" of William Galeys to be be presented to Edward III. Mortimer's work is too detailed to recount entirely here, but he accuses the historical establishment of insularity and groupthink when first presented with his findings in 2004 - so has anything changed in the last ten years? Does anyone agree with Mortimer or have his findings been debunked?

In all the books I read, they always praise Pedro I and Pedro II, and that about how the monarchy was down on Earth and for the people. But in every textbook, they talk how the monarchy couldnt control the country and done nothing.

So I've done some study on the Saxon portions of Britain pre-Norman invasion, and how those Saxon kingdoms formed West Saxons -> Wessex, East Saxons -> Essex, etc. But I've also read that along with the Saxon settlers there were Angles (England -> Angle Land, and Anglo-Saxon), Jutes and Frisians.

Aside from the obvious presence of Angle in England, did any of those peoples have any lasting impact on Britain? And why was it that 1 particular Germanic tribe was able to so comprehensively dominate the apparent history of the region?

Preferrably from urban areas. I'd be most interested in England for obvious reasons, but I'd love any that might be around. A Roman (any time, but after the 300ad decline would be fascinating) or a German one of any sort pre-20th century would be incredible as well. I know these places had police forces, but I'm unsure if they logged the crimes that were committed either by themselves or perhaps as part of a memoir. I'd also be interested in church records of heretics and their punishments from around the 12th to 17th centuries

Again, just about anything would help though, I just want to get a better idea of that side of daily life.

I love this sub so much

There seems to be no real reason why... any insight would prove valuable!

I've been reading Niall Ferguson's "The West and the Rest", and if seems like the idea of Europe being inherently superior to the rest of the world seems to have been popular for a time. The book also mentions an Ottoman scholar's remark about the rise of Europe, and how the sultanate was no longer the height of civilization. Europe was aware of the grandeur of China and India, I believe.

How did European scholars account for these magnificent civilizations when discussing European superiority? Did they genuinely believe that the Mongol empire, Ming, Ottomans, or the Timurids were never "ahead" of Europe?

During the age of discovery and the time of colonialism why didn't larger powers just blockade the dutch or Portuguese in Europe then pick off there colonies? By Larger powers I do mean nations like Great Britain, France and Spain

Basically I was wondering where the 1918 flu came from and how did it spread in europe. I'm also wondering how both sides of the war came down with the flu and was there one side that suffered more than the other?